Appeal Ref. No: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Cheshire East ... · Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon 1 Appeal Ref. No: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Cheshire East

Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 Proof prepared by J Stuart Nixon

1

Appeal Ref. No: APP/R0660/W/15/3027388

Cheshire East Application No: 14/0114M

Hybrid planning proposal by Argonaught Holdings Ltd c/o LPC Living Ltd

for mixed-use redevelopment seeking:

A Full planning permission for alterations to existing employment

buildings, construction of new employment buildings and installation of

new over ground services, piping and ducting.

B Full planning permission for demolition of remaining redundant

employment buildings and removal of redundant over ground services,

piping and ducting.

C Outline planning permission for construction of dwellings, associated

infrastructure, landscaping and other associated works (means of

access) at Harman Technology Site and adj land, Ilford Way, Town Lane,

Mobberley.

PLANNING PROOF OF EVIDENCE

J Stuart Nixon BSc(Hons) DipTE CEng MICE MRTPI MCIHT

Inquiry 4 May 2016


2

1. Personal details

1.1 My name is John Stuart Nixon and I have on degree in Civil Engineering

with Honours and a post graduate Diploma in Traffic Engineering. I am a

Chartered Engineer, a Member of the Institute of Civil Engineering, the

Royal Town Planning Institute and Chartered Institute of Highways and

Transportation.

1.2 I have been employed in the public sector for over 45 years, holding

senior posts in local and central government. The roles have been in town

and landuse planning, highways and traffic and the full range of

engineering and environmental disciplines. I retired from full time

employment some 10 years ago and have been working as a consultant

and on a part time basis since then.

1.3 I have been a resident of Mobberley for more than 20-years and have

chaired the Parish Council and the Steering Group that prepared the

Mobberley Parish Plan.

1.4 The evidence that I shall provide for this appeal, Ref.No:

APP/R0660/W/15/3027388 has been prepared and is given in accordance

with the guidance of my professional institutions. I confirm that the

opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. In providing

expert evidence to the inquiry I am fully aware that my duty is to the

inquiry and to provide my honestly held professional view, irrespective of

by whom I am employed.


3

2. Overview

2.1 This proof covers the material planning issues and other considerations

raised by the appeal scheme. With regard to specialist knowledge, other

witnesses have covered highways/traffic, noise, design, employment,

education and local matters. The conclusions from these witnesses have

been incorporated into my evidence when undertaking the planning

balance and reaching an overall conclusion. In preparing this proof, I have

had regard to the Appeal Statement prepared by Argonaught Holdings Ltd

c/o LPC Living Ltd (the Appellants) and the Statement of Case submitted

by Cheshire East Council (the Council).

2.2 Unfortunately and contrary to the Inquiry Procedure Rules, no Statement

of Common Ground had been prepared before the closing date for

evidence, placing an unreasonable burden on the Rule 6 Party. Where

references to documents are made, these documents are assumed to be

included in the Core Documents, again yet to be provided by the main

parties. A Summary Proof is appended at the end.

2.3 The application was recommended for approval by the Council’s Officers

against a background that a 5-year supply of readily available housing

land (HLS) could not be identified. As such, the Officers would have been

aware that the development plan (DP) policies controlling the supply of

housing cannot be considered up-to-date and that housing developments

should be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of

sustainable development.

2.4 Notwithstanding, the application was refused by the Council Members for

three reasons pertaining to noise, the harmful effect on the character of

the Village of Mobberley and the level of affordable housing on offer.

There were some 230 individual letters of objection, with one or two in

support.

2.5 Although it is appreciated that the Council’s position on the 5-year HLS

have vacillated over the past few years between being confident of being

able to identify a 5-year HLS and not being able to do so, it is not part of

the Rule 6 party’s case to argue that there is a 5-year supply. Thus, it

accepts that paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the

Framework) is triggered, and this explains that under such circumstances,

planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of a

particular scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies evinced by the Framework,

taken as a whole.


4

2.6 Put briefly, the Rule 6 party commends the Members for concluding that

the harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of

this scheme. This evidence will show that the Members were correct, after

applying the planning balance.

2.7 On the other hand, the Rule 6 party believes that, when drafting the

Report, the Council’s Officers were unduly influenced by the lack of a 5-

year HLS and did not pursue all the negative considerations. They did not

bottom out a significant number of environmental issues, which still

remain unresolved, and did not, therefore, undertake a meaningful

planning balance. It seems the Officers clearly believed that a lack of a 5-

year housing land supply trumps all other objections and concerns.

2.8 This could not have been helped by the Officers understanding that they

are only able to assess the scheme based on the information submitted by

the Applicant. Once again, the Rule 6 party disagrees and firmly believes

that the Officers should not merely accept the submitted information, but

are required to apply their professional knowledge/judgement in their

critique to test the reasonableness of the submissions.

2.9 Crucially in our view, this was not assisted by having judged the proposal

not to be EIA development, which would have drawn out the

environmental harm in a unified Environmental Statement (ES) as

opposed to a large number of disparate and uncoordinated reports (20

reports). It would also have drawn together the consultation responses on

environmental matters (19 responses, some multiple), a further

requirement of the EIA Regulations.

2.10 In any event, this appeal should be decided in accordance with the

provisions of the development plan (DP), unless the material

considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the relevant section of the

DP comprises the saved policies from the Macclesfield Local Plan 2004

(LP). As this was adopted prior to publication of the Framework, the saved

policies can only attract weight commensurate with their conformity with

the Framework policies.

2.11 There is an emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (LPS) and, in

accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework, decision-takers may

give weight to the relevant policies in the emerging plan according to its

stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections

and the degree of consistency with the Framework. An early draft has

been submitted to and commented on by the Local Plan Inspector, who

made several suggestions in relation to housing and employment

provision and policy. These have been responded to by the Council, and

the final draft has been approved by Members and issued for public


5

consultation, with a closing date in mid-April. The examination is expected

in late summer and Plan adoption early in 2017.

2.12 Although the Council would wish the policies of the LPS to attract

significant weight, and has resolved that it should be adopted for

development control purposes, the stage it is at means that it can only

attract moderate weight, though where research and consultation has

been conducted, the Inspector’s ‘guidance’ may be taken as an indication

of the direction of travel.

2.13 In terms of non-statutory policy guidance, there is a Mobberley Parish

Plan 2010, which has been accepted by the Council, though not mentioned

in the Officer’s Report or by the Appellants. A Neighbourhood Plan is in the

very early stages, but is inhibited by the lack of progress on the LPS.

Finally, the Council relies on its Supplementary Planning Guidance on

s.106 Agreements.

3. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

3.1 The Appellants sought a screening opinion from the Council. The Council

responded by saying that the proposed development falls under Schedule

2 development as described in Column 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011

and under paragraph 10 of Column 1 and meets the criteria under Column

2. After consideration, the Council accepted that it is EIA development,

but concluded that it does not raise any material environmental concerns

that justify it being classed as EIA development requiring the preparation

of an Environmental Statement (ES). The Rule 6 Party agrees that it falls

under the head of Schedule 2 development, which does not require a

mandatory ES.

3.2 On consideration of the facts, however, the Rule 6 Party questions the

Council’s conclusion that no ES was necessary in this case, and believes

that it failed to acknowledge the impact of a number of environmental

matters. In those cases where it did believe that investigation should take

place the Council asked for a report to be produced. The outcome was

that a large number of reports were produced (20), which should have

been drawn together in an ES and not left as individual, disparate reports,

with little or no cross reference or consideration of cumulative effects.

3.3 More worrying for the Rule 6 party, it is difficult to know which are the

latest versions or where agreements outside the published or formal

process have been taken by the Council and Appellants. Some of these

reports for an early 2014 application were produced as late as March

2016.


6

3.4 In support of the Rule 6 Party’s stance on EIA, there would be a physical

change to the locality. Although part of the site is developed, the total

extent of the new development would extend into existing open

countryside, a part of the Green Belt and land within and contributing to

the setting of the Mobberley Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. At

the very least, this needs an assessment of alternatives that would

minimise the impact on these interests of acknowledged importance. As it

stands, the heritage consideration is covered by a separate statement and

under-values the adverse effect on the heritage assets and the raison

d’etre for their designation. As will be demonstrated later, because of the

physical impact, the Rule 6 Party believes the cumulative detrimental

effect would be substantial.

3.5 As for traffic related impacts, it is now acknowledged by the Council, as

local highway authority (LHA), that there would be a severe residual

adverse effect on the movement of traffic through Knutsford and that a

scheme would be required to accommodate this. One week before this

proof of evidence was due to be submitted, an interim scheme was tabled

costing towards £1.2m at 2014 costs. However, there is no assessment of

the benefits it would deliver. At the time the screening opinion was

requested, it seems that the Council relied on the Applicants’ input, which

one could have expected to put the most favourable gloss on the

outcome.

3.6 There is no objective assessment of the impact of traffic in other

directions, even though it is known that there are junction capacity

problems at a number of locations and that additional development on

preferred sites will add to this. In particular, the routes to Wilmslow at the

Kings Arms Roundabout, Alderley Edge at the Brook Lane junction and

with Wilmslow – Altrincham Road (A538) at the M56 and access to MIA

are already severely congested. It is also worth noting the impact from

the 3,000 vehicle movements a day on Mobberley and specifically the

village centre, along Town Lane.

3.7 Moving to noise, there is acceptance that a Noise Assessment should be

prepared and this should be part of a comprehensive Environmental

Statement (ES) and cover and assess the cumulative effect of aircraft

noise, traffic noise and any industrial noise. Once again, the Council

appears to have relied on the Applicants’ submissions. However, with the

Council’s EHO recommending refusal and the Applicants responding that

acoustic shelters would be required this is clearly a major environmental

issue. Importantly, if the residential site is in an unfavourable acoustic

location, this would have effects on the operations of MIA going forward,


7

by locating a substantial level of potential objection within or close to its

flight paths.

3.8 The crucial matters that the Council’s Officers have missed are first, the

fact that building on this site would compromise undertakings given by

MIA when the second runway was granted permission. This would

prejudice the planned operation of the airport in the future. Secondly, the

cumulative effect of the mixed use development proposed and the

interaction between the various elements of the proposal.

3.9 By way of example, the noise from the aircraft passing overhead, plus

noise from the existing employment and traffic makes up the background

existing noise. To assess the impact on the various elements for the new

proposal it is necessary to differentiate the various elements and, in each

case, add the additional noise from the other activities to assess if the

environmental noise breaches policy, which, as will be demonstrated, it

does.

3.10 For the housing, even if it could be shown that the background noise

alone would not preclude residential development, to assess the impact of

noise on the residential component, noise from the employment element

and the traffic generated by all uses must be added to the background.

The only way to understand the interaction is to look at the situation

holistically – namely by way of an Environmental Statement. As it stands,

the various elements have been treated independently and are largely

worthless.

3.11 Similar arguments apply to the Air Quality Assessment (AQA). Here the

Council also seems to accept that an AQA would be necessary and as a

site close to the flight path from the MIA this seems essential. In addition,

the site is close to existing employment, agricultural uses and a sewage

works and the operators United Utilities (UU) draw attention to the

potential for noxious smells from the latter. All these last three points

could have a material effect on the operation of MIA and the sewage

works going forward. However, in the AQA undertaken, the Appellants

have concentrated only on the effects of traffic and not aggregated all

impacts. In particular, residents experience the unhealthy pollution from

aircraft engine fumes on a regular basis.

3.12 Although the impacts on ecological and nature conservation assets are

unlikely to be of major significance, Habitat Surveys have been prepared

and these show possible protected species are resident. As such, the

Council was correct in requiring a full ecological survey and submission of

appropriate mitigation measures.


8

3.13 As for infrastructure, there is no headroom in the infant and primary

school accommodation to accept children from the application site on the

school roll. In terms of community infrastructure, the development would

bring no new service facility to the table. With regard to the effect on the

size of the Village of Mobberley, within the drawn development boundary

the increase would be some 50%. Mobberley is a large Parish, but a small

Village, with a s significant proportion of the properties and residents

living outside the drawn Village Envelope, including two large remote

mobile home parks.

3.14 The conclusion on land contamination hedges bets. However, it is clear

that the site is part of or adjacent to a large employment site, where the

use of dangerous chemicals would have been a daily event. In respect of

the later application on the appeal site, the EHO has now raised alarms

about contamination of the land and the sensitivity of the proposed use.

These concerns are echoed by the EA and MIA. Housing is a sensitive end

user and, in these circumstances, it is irresponsible not to assess the

potential for land contamination before granting planning permission.

There might also be the potential for leachate from the sewage works.

Both these could have a significant effect on the developable areas and

the traffic and industrial plant necessary to effect satisfactory remediation.

3.15 Returning to heritage matters, the Council seems to have missed that

there is a building, car parking and access roads proposed on the open

space land and this would have an adverse effect on the both the physical

extent and the setting of the Conservation Area and compromise some

important views from public vantage points as well as devalue the

relationship of the Conservation Area to the Village’s rural roots.

3.16 Importantly, an ES would look at the alternatives that would avoid the

loss of this sensitive land within and adjacent to the Conservation Area. It

would address the consequences of not using the Conservation Area and

Green Belt land and incorporating the open space within the development

site. As is stands, there is reason to believe that the physical and visual

harm would be substantial as the proposal would not preserve or enhance

and would detract inordinately.

3.17 When looking at the other matters highlighted by the Council, there are

number where it has taken a leap of faith. In particular, the site is situate

in a critical location for aircraft operations, being close to the MIA flight

path. There is, therefore, a safety risk that will be explored by an ex-

employee of the Airport. In addition, the proximity of the flight path will

preclude berry producing scrubs, trees above 3 m in height and any

stretches of open water, which may be necessary for drainage purposes.

There would also have to be restriction in lighting on the site, which may


9

lead to a personal safety risk encouraging addition trips by car during

hours of darkness.

3.18 Given this evidence, the only conclusion that we can draw is that the

Council required investigation of many environmental aspects and these

have been produced in a disparate fashion. This runs contrary to the

entire ethos of EIA, which requires all the environmental information to be

included in one place and be readily available for assessment by

interested persons and parties. Where the environmental evidence is

inadequate, as in this case, the appeal should be dismissed until the ES is

prepared and decisions taken on any necessary attenuation. It would be

inappropriate to seek to address any shortcomings in the environmental

evidence by the imposition of conditions without being certain that an

acceptable outcome could be achieved.

3.19 Finally, this position is further supported by the failure of the main parties

to engage with the Rule 6 party and agree a Statement of Common

Ground before the evidence for the inquiry had to be submitted.

4. Main issues and material considerations

4.1 Having regard to the prevailing planning policies, its seems to the Rule 6

party that the main issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the

proposed development can be considered sustainable and, as we judge

that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable

housing land, whether other material considerations would significantly

and demonstratively outweigh the benefits of the scheme, especially

having regard to:

a) The policy framework;

b) The loss of employment land;

c) The loss of Green Belt and agricultural land;

d) The implications for the character and appearance of Mobberley

Conservation Area;

e) The need for affordable housing in the area and viability issues;

f) The effect on the physical and social character of the Village;

g) The creation of new public open space;

h) The impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic;

i) The sustainability of the site;

j) Noise issues from aircraft, traffic and the adjacent industrial estate;

k) Design, layout and density issues;

l) The effect on amenities and services in the Village, including education

and retail provision;

m) Flooding and drainage;

n) The effect of public rights of way;


10

o) The concern about odour;

p) The air quality in the locality;

q) The issue of land contamination;

r) The effects on the landscape, trees and ecology;

s) The overall suitability of the site for housing; and

t) Other matters.

4.2 In addition, there are concerns raised about the way Council Officers have

considered the overall planning balance and the proposed s.106 Legal

Agreement.

5. The policy framework

5.1 As noted previously, the relevant section of the DP comprises the saved

policies from the Macclesfield Local Plan 2004 (LP). As this was adopted

prior to publication of the Framework, the saved policies can only attract

weight commensurate with their conformity with the Framework. As for

the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (LPS), there has been

some useful feedback from the LP Inspector and the draft LPS gives a

clear indication of the direction of travel intended.

5.2 The Council advances a raft of saved policies from the LP covering the

built development (including conservation area policy); development

control; transport; environment (landscape and ecology); housing

(including affordable housing); recreation and tourism, Green Belt; and

implementation policies. As for the emerging LPS, the Council suggests

this should be given considerable weight on the basis of the consultation

and research carried out. However, the formal objection period has only

just closed and, as such, apart from the steer given by the LP Inspector

and the direction of travel, this should be given relatively little weight.

5.3 Interesting enough, the Mobberley Parish Plan 2010 is not referred to in

the Officer’s report, despite it being adopted by the Council as a

consideration in deciding applications. The Plan looks for affordable

housing for local people to meet the demand identified during the

consultation process. It also looks for energy efficient forms of

development, adopting appropriate layout and design.

5.4 The emerging Mobberley Neighbourhood Plan (NP), designed to supersede

the Parish Plan has made little progress. This is hardly surprising having

regard to the sedentary pace of the LP since Cheshire East took over in

2008. The NP should be reflecting the wishes of the LPS, but as this has

only just been issued for consultation, it has been impossible for the NP

team to produce anything sensible. This has been further compounded by


11

the appeal application, which would turn all present thoughts on their

head.

5.5 The Council also rely on supplementary planning guidance covering such

matters as implementation and s.106 Agreements.

5.6 The policies and guidance referred to above have been draw on when

discussing the issues and other considerations. However, as an overview,

the appeal site is not allocated for housing in the LP or Parish Plan and not

identified for housing or promoted as a preferred site in the emerging LPS.

There are no preferred sites for housing in Mobberley shown in the

emerging LPS, which reflects the status and current accessibility of the

Village and is a key indicator that growth is intended to be organic for the

LPS period to 2030. In both the LP and emerging LPS the land is identified

as in existing employment use.

5.7 Delivery of the residential component of the appeal scheme would require

building on part of the Cheshire Green Belt and within the Mobberley

Conservation Area. Respectively, these designations carry a presumption

against inappropriate development and the obligation to consider the

desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance. Thus,

it can be said with certainty that the principle of development does not

accord with the development plan looked at as a whole and this is the

starting point. There are, of course, additional site specific objections

stemming from conflict with other policies.

5.8 Even so, as in this case, where local planning authorities cannot

demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land, DP policies

controlling the supply of housing cannot be considered up-to-date and

housing developments should be determined in accordance with the

presumption in favour of sustainable development. In turn, this triggers

paragraph 14 of the Framework, which explains that under such

circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse

impacts of a particular scheme would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies evinced by the

Framework, taken as a whole.

5.9 Against this background, should the proposal be shown to be sustainable,

the building of up to 360 new dwellings, including some 20 affordable

properties, attracts significant weight in the overall planning balance.

5.10 Whereas land in agricultural use would become vulnerable, the same

should not be said of land used for employment and where the intention is

for that use to be continued. The use of GB land is something of a moot

point at present as a recent Judgement has cast doubt about the level of


12

protection. However, common sense says that this will only offer a short

window of opportunity, because the GB is seen as such an important

designation in land use terms and should only be amended as part of the

local plan process. The weight to be accorded the effect on the

Conservation Area and Listed Buildings is something that would have to

be established on a case by case basis, but such designations are not

automatically vulnerable.

6. The loss of an employment site

6.1 Before moving to the site specific arguments it is necessary to understand

what is driving the appeal proposal. Following going into receivership

Harmans are a reformed company, having been bought out by the staff.

However, even though they are essentially a new company it seems that

they have a lease with the current land owners Argonaught Ltd, which is a

continuing lease for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, for the

company to remain financially viable, they have to divest themselves of

the outdated building assets and move to more modern premises, not

least because of the crippling business rates they are paying on those

outdated and grossly underused buildings.

6.2 The options for Harmans are, therefore, stark. They could stay where they

are until the lease expires, and continue using the site as at present and

pay for the lease and rates. This would not be economically sensible.

Alternatively, they could move the entire operation to a new location,

which would be business efficient, but carry with it the current ongoing

rental costs, understood to be £1m per annum. As stated by the

Applicant’s Agent, this means that even were Harmans to move to a more

suitable site for their ongoing purposes they would still be liable for paying

the lease for the outstanding years.

6.3 Faced with this, the landowners, in conjunction with Harmans, have come

up with this ‘get out of jail’ plan to promote a scheme where there would

be cross-fertilisation between reconfiguring the Harmans operation on

much less of the site, leaving the remainder to be developed for 360+

dwellings and a modicum of employment. Clearly the primary intention is

to fund the building of the new components for Harmans and the new

employment from the housing sales, with a significant profit going to the

landowners from the housing. The evidence would seem to demonstrate

this.

6.4 In the first place, there is no economic viability assessment for the entire

scheme, only for the housing elements and then only to justify that the

amount of affordable housing must be substantially below the 30% policy

requirement at 5%. Put another way, the loss of a significant employment


13

site is to be justified to address a poor financial arrangement taken on by

the revamped Harmans operation. We will return to this when considering

the affordable housing contribution in more detail.

6.5 There is a Marketing Report, but this does not look at the positive

opportunities for redevelopment of the site for employment, only the

negative aspects of why it might not prove fruitful. Crucially, no design

brief and/or Masterplan have been prepared for the use of the site as

wholly employment. For the site to reach critical mass, it would have to be

developed as one site, whereby enterprises could interact.

6.6 Allocations for employment land in a LP may be sacrificed in a number of

circumstances and previous decisions highlight these. First, there must

have been a comprehensive marketing strategy. There is no evidence of

this here. Secondly, there must be an oversupply of employment land

when assessed realistically. Again this is not the case here, where the LPS

Inspector identifies a shortage in this area. Thirdly, the existing usage

might be causing environmental problems for surrounding uses. There is

no evidence of this brought forward by the Appellants or the Council.

6.7 None of these apply here, where the only argument here is that there is a

shortage in the 5-year supply of readily available housing land, which

delivers the opportunity. While this is true at present, the LPS

Examination is due to take place in a very short time and this should

address this position. In any event, the LPS Examination is the correct

forum in which to assess these matters and not an ad hoc s.78 appeal,

which has a narrow remit.

6.8 The site is allocated for employment purposes by virtue of LP Policy E1 in

the LP and its use for employment is confirmed by Policy EG3 of the

emerging LPS. Although the Council Officer’s statement at a recent

planning meeting was that it is not allocated for employment or for that

matter any other use in the emerging LPS, this is to misstate the position

in an attempt to mislead. There is no need for it to be allocated as it is

already in employment use. In fact, if it was not then it would undermine

its understanding that it is a brownfield site.

6.9 The Council argues that there is sufficient employment land across the

district, without the Harman site. This is not borne out by recent events as

far as the northern area is concerned. The LP Inspector in his response to

the LPS points out that there is a shortage of employment land in the

north of the district. Moreover, the Council has just refused an application

for a retail park in Handforth on employment land adopting the very same

argument.


14

6.10 Clearly it is not sound planning practice to sterilise employment land

where there is no reasonable prospect of employment uses materialising.

Equally, there is no point pursuing an employment use if there are other

problems such as access. On the first point, we would agree that large

scale industry and B8 haulage and transport are unlikely to be attracted to

a site with poor road links.

6.11 However, the use of the site for B1 office or light industrial development

would be perfectly feasible if the benefits of the site were highlighted and

the transport and access links improved. B1/office rents in Knutsford are

the highest in the region outside Manchester City Centre. There is a rail

station very close by and intercity rail connections and international air

links within a very short distance. In addition, with the LPS allocations and

objectives, there is an inevitability that traffic conditions in the centre of

Knutsford will be greatly improved sooner rather than later, which could

act as a catalyst to investment in the immediate hinterland e.g.

Mobberley. If not, cross-funding from a residential scheme would not

make the situation any better for the tranches that are proposed for

employment development, which would leave the new employment land

vulnerable.

6.12 There was a Marketing Report conducted, but the date of this was

December 2013 and the Report concedes that it was at a time of

recession. What it did say was that it would be most unlikely for anyone to

take on the site as a single entity. Similarly, it would be unattractive for

any of the underused buildings on the site to be re-let to other users as

they are generally bespoke buildings, unsuitable for general use. As for

the offices, these are not considered sufficiently modern to attract

interest, especially as there were other and better offers available.

6.13 The redevelopment prospects of the site were again not thought to be

good. The site meets none of the locational attributes necessary for

redevelopment and would, therefore, be unviable. What does not appear

to have been done is for there to be a focussed marketing strategy

promoting the benefits of the site based on a Design Brief and Masterplan.

The Marketing Report seems to have concentrated on the negative aspects

of the site.

6.14 In any event, the failure of the owners to devise an economic scheme is

not a good reason for residential dumping of this scale on an unsuitable

site. Moreover, we have seen no viability studies which show that the site

has been marketed on this basis or how the employment use would

develop alongside the housing. We have not been able to find any

marketing strategy for the site beyond advertising for someone to make

use of the underused buildings, which is unrealistic. The site needs to be


15

developed for employment for today’s needs and it has not been marketed

in this way.

6.15 Notwithstanding, the fact that the entire site could not be developed for

employment purposes is again not a good reason for moving to a

residential use. There are considerable areas of the site that, though

technically employment land, could remain undeveloped for many years.

The Plan will run until 2030. The Government perspective is not that every

allocated site should be developed in the short term, but that there should

be choice.

6.16 It should be remembered, also, that Mobberley has already supported

Ilfords/Harmans on one previous occasion, at the cost of a Barratt’s

housing development that still jars today as something without empathy

for the village ethos. Even then, at the planning committee meeting, the

Harman representative said that the company was destined for expansion,

with the clear intimation that this would be off-site. The loss of the

employment land on the appeal site would prejudice Harman’s expansion

on this site and make a move off site certainty.

6.17 As for the policy position, with the land identified for employment and the

recent loss of 10+ha of employment land at Parkgate, conceded in the

face of a shortfall in the 5-year housing land supply, the need to keep this

site available is now much stronger. If this site was lost then there would

be no land allocated locally for start-up businesses and local job creation,

in the jobs led growth economy of Cheshire East. As noted, whereas there

may be an oversupply in Cheshire East as a whole, this is not the case

around here and the Local Plan Inspector identified this as a concern.

6.18 One final point is that the Marketing Report identified that people living in

the houses in Mobberley are likely to be unsuitable to the type of work

generated by the present site, unless there is a transformation. This would

apply equally to the new houses proposed and leave Mobberley as another

dormitory mini town for Manchester and Airport City.

6.19 To summarise on this point, if the Harmans’ site is not viable going

forward, and, if the location and accessibility is as bad as the Council and

the Appellants believe, then this is not going to be improved by building

360+ houses on an unsuitable site. The need to carry the site forward as

an employment site is something that should be decided at the LP

examination, against the background of the shortage of suitable sites in

the north of the District. This will almost certainly require a radical

strategy for redevelopment, based on the assets the site has to offer and

not the negative points generated by the Appellants.


16

7. The loss of Green Belt land

7.1 The Rule 6 party is happy to accept the Council’s position that as this is an

application for a change of use of agricultural land for outdoor sport and

recreation this is not an exception under paragraph 89 of the Framework.

Therefore, it attracts the negative presumption against. Consequently, for

there to be a justification for the departure from Green Belt policy the

Council acknowledges that there must be very special circumstances. We

add that, in such a situation, the very special circumstances must clearly

outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and all other harm.

7.2 In this case, there is first the in principle harm to the Green Belt. Next,

there would be the physical intrusion of the buildings, parking, access

routes and allotments that would prejudice the openness of the Green

Belt. Thirdly, there is no justification for its use as part of the appeal

proposal. There is a sports field at the exit to the appeal site, which is

owned and maintained by the Parish Council. The additional site proposed

would be superfluous to requirements for a small village and impose costs

that would either have to be borne by the Parish Council or have to be

offset against other infrastructure. Either way there is no audited or

objective justification for this. This site is not constrained and, thus, the

open space should be included within the developed area of the site.

7.3 Fourthly, and of even greater importance, the land proposed for the sports

field forms a part of the Mobberley Conservation Area and, as will be

shown later, this makes its positive contribution in its undeveloped state

as rural agricultural land, within site of the Parish Church, Listed Grade 1.

7.4 Taken together, this is a cynical attempt to maximise housing provision at

the expense of other interests of acknowledged importance, without any

justification. As such, there are no very special circumstances and so this

constitutes a significant negative factor in the planning balance.

8. The implications for the character and appearance of Mobberley

Conservation Area

8.1 Both the Appellant’s submissions and the Officer’s Report understate the

effect the proposals would have on the Mobberley Conservation Area. In

fact, neither seems to realise that the proposals would have any physical

effect on the area at all. The Officers make no mention of it in their Report

and apart from referring to a Heritage Report that had been prepared, it

was not mentioned in the Applicants’ Design and Access Statement. In the

Heritage Report itself, it recognises that the open views of the pastoral

landscape is one of the most significant characteristics of the Conservation


17

network of footpaths that provides access to this landscape is a valuable

asset.

8.2 Having said this, in the design phase the Conservation Area was not seen

as a main constraint. The appraisal failed to recognise the footpaths to the

east of the built area and across the sports field site. These are FP13 and

the two that are the subject of an outstanding Definitive Map Modification

Order (DMMO).

8.3 To access the impacts, it is necessary to start from the policy directives in

this regard. In the Framework, there is a section on heritage assets and

this looks at both physical effect and that on the setting of a Conservation

Area and Listed Buildings. In a nutshell, the guidance requires

consideration of the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or

appearance. In assessing whether the effects should direct the decision

maker to resist a development, it is necessary to look at the merits of the

asset and then to consider if the harm would be substantial or significant.

In these circumstances, there is a strong case for refusing planning

permission on this fact alone.

8.4 However, even should the harm be less than substantial, this does not

mean that it does not contribute a negative factor in the overall planning

balance. It may still be harmful to a varying degree. The PPG puts flesh on

how this should be decided.

8.5 Looking first at the character and appearance and what factors justified

the creation of the Mobberley Conservation Area, it is necessary to refer

to the Mobberley Conservation Area Appraisal 2006. This defines its

character and the important views and aspects.

8.6 First off, the limits of the Conservation Area are set wide and include an

appreciable number of important buildings of national and local

significance. These are generally focussed on the three ‘centres’ of the

historic village, namely around the Parish Church, the former mill on

Mobberley Brook and Knolls Green. The particular relevance of the

expanse is twofold. First, it emphasises the agricultural roots of the

Village.

8.7 Secondly, the field and footpaths running across it are in full view of the

Parish Church, which is medieval. In former days, it was always

considered that fields in sight of the Church would be more productive as

workers believed they were under the watchful eye of their Maker. The

loss of this field would diminish the asset and result in significant harm to

both the character and visual appearance of the extended setting of the

Church.


18

8.8 Views from the southern stretches of PF13 and the other two, subject of

the DMMO, as they pass through the Conservation Area are critical. As

noted above, the key function of the Conservation Area is to emphasise

the close relationship between the built elements and the surrounding

farmland, thus reflecting the agricultural roots of the Village. The loss of a

key foreground view definitive of this function would be pronounced with

the change of use from agriculture to a much less rustic use and one of a

more domestic feel. In the opinion of the Rule 6 party, with the physical

and visual harm, this would constitute substantial harm and attract the

negative weight accordingly.

8.9 As such, the proposal would not accord with the saved LP Policies BE3 and

BE4 and Policy SE7 of the emerging LPS or the Government objectives set

out within the Framework, and in particular paragraphs 126-134. This

provides a further strong reason for resisting the current scheme and loss

of this open agricultural field.

9. The need for affordable housing in the area and viability issues

9.1 There is a need for affordable housing in the area as is evidenced by the

Local Councillor Jamie Mcrae and in the finding of the Mobberley Parish

Plan. The usual rate of delivery is expected to be 30% and the proposal

justified here in the Economic Viability Assessment (EVA) is for only 5%.

There may have been some collusion between the Council and the

Appellants to raise this figure, but so long as the EVA does not justify a

higher figure it is worthless. As such, for what is essentially a brownfield

site that has borrowed ‘cheap’ land from the Green Belt to provide the

necessary open space this is much too low and we shall look at why.

9.2 Importantly, history has informed us that few of the children of the

existing residents, who may have left, would be able to afford the new

properties, even if discounted by 20%, and would not qualify for social

housing. Thus, this small level of affordable housing would be of little or

no benefit to the Village and, therefore, not in accordance with the LPS or

the Mobberley Parish Plan.

9.3 Looking at possible defects in the EVA, first, the Green Belt element would

normally be included as open space within the built area of the site and,

after deduction of the essential costs, the residual value of the site

apportioned between the 360+ plots. In this case, this does not appear to

have happened. If it was then the individual plot costs would decrease.

9.4 The main driving force for the development advanced by the Appellants at

a recent Planning Committee is to regenerate Harmans. This is not what


19

the EVA and Marketing Assessment says. In effect, if the main driver is to

regenerate, then the profits from the housing should go toward this. To

include the cost of the regeneration and then require a further 20% profit

from the housing is double counting.

9.5 In addition, the site is allocated for employment use and so the value of

the land should only be employment value plus an uplift, of say 10%, for

an opportunity benefit. The EVA includes an uplift of 15-20%, which again

is high. What we seem to have here is a cross funding exercise, whereby

the residential element will fund the employment site leaving that at nil

cost and then delivering a 20% profit on the housing. In addition, the

infrastructure costs are all put down to the housing, which is

inappropriate.

9.6 Next, the sale price of houses in the Assessment is out of date. The prices

we find today are much higher – a 2-bed park home is on the market at

£225,000. In any event, the price should reflect the likely sale price at the

time of completion. As the site is for some 360 units and sites generally

build out at maximum of 50 units per annum, the sale price should reflect

the values anticipated for 2019/20. As the affordable housing would be

phased in accordance with the overall residential development, this again

would mean there is much more headroom available to affordable

housing. The conventional approach of the RICS is to take present day

value and apply an uplift of 10%.

9.7 Thirdly, the on-costs for development are suspect for a number of

reasons. Owing to the lack of a detailed site investigation, the costs of

remediation of land contamination is unknown. However, they are

included as £0.5m and this is a deducted cost. If this is the cost then this

counts for a significant amount of remediation and this should have been

addressed in more detail in an ES. In any event, much of the remediation

costs would appear to be included in the demolition costs and again this is

double counting.

9.8 Fourthly, the cost of securing the rights to cross the access between the

built part of the appeal site and the open space is unknown, but could be

very expensive. Importantly, as far as we can see, no update on the EVA

has been undertaken and this matter does not seem to have been known

at the time either of the Assessments were drafted.

9.9 Fifthly, the contribution allowed for education has been substantially

reduced by the Council in the latter application. Presumably this should

now apply to the appeal scheme.


20

9.10 Finally, the maximum level of profit of 20% is taken, despite the ‘urgent

need’ to support Harmans. This is along with the highest level of

construction costs. In both cases these should be lowered, the first

because of double counting and the second because of economies of

scale. There is, also the extremely high cost of soundproofing the

dwellings and providing acoustic shelters for outside amenity. These are

not included as a separate item.

9.11 The bottom line is that the EVA is not robust, with many areas of

conjecture. Notwithstanding, if this site, with all its assets, cannot deliver

the full affordable housing contribution required by condition, then the

Council’s policy has been blown away virtually before it has been adopted.

If the site is so difficult and expensive to develop that there is no money

available to provide the affordable and social housing required by policy it

confirms why the site should be developed for a less sensitive and lower

cost development use i.e. employment. To proceed with the development

with such a low affordable housing contribution would be socially

irresponsible and put pressure on other greenfield sites, including those in

the Green Belt.

10. The effect on the physical and social character of the Village

10.1 The Village of Mobberley is interesting for a number of reasons, but one of

the key ones is its layout and disposition. As said previously, it is a large

Parish but a small Village. Overall, there are between 1300-1400 dwellings

within the Parish of Mobberley, but a significant number of these are

highly dispersed, with many well outside the defined village envelope. On

the one hand, this stems from historic reasons, with the original centres of

the Village some way from the present defined boundary. Much of this

area falls within the Mobberley Conservation Area, unlike most of the

‘new’ village.

10.2 The second reason is that the Village hosts a significant number of mobile

or park homes on two sites. One of these sites, in Morley Green, faces

Wilmslow, rather than Mobberley and for services, schools etc naturally

tends to the bigger town. The ‘new’ centre for Mobberley was built up

around the Ilford business in the mid-20th Century.

10.3 This means that, to all intents and purposes, the effective Village is much

smaller than the 1300 dwellings on the register and actually only has

some 6-700 properties within the village boundary. As such, the argument

that the appeal proposal would add almost 30% to the existing village is a

considerable under-estimate of the effect on its character. The real figure

is approaching 50%.


21

10.4 This would represent a significant increase in the housing stock and

population of Mobberley. Moreover, in terms of population, the existing

ages of residents tend very much to the elderly end (50% higher than the

national average) with very many properties only supporting one or two

residents (2011 census). The lack of affordable housing has driven many

of the children away to find affordable properties elsewhere. The new

properties would largely be family homes with a correspondingly higher

occupancy rate.

10.5 This means that a large number of new residents would have to be

assimilated into a relatively small population. Crucially, with the extremely

limited facilities and employment opportunities in the Village, most

journeys for employment, main retail trips, most leisure and support

services would be to external locations. The new employment

opportunities must be discounted until there is a commitment to delivery,

which, as said, the Rule 6 party believes unlikely as there would be no

critical mass.

10.6 Schooling would be a particular problem. The appeal site is nearer the

village school than the main areas of the Village, meaning that first choice

would go to children on the appeal site. There is no possibility of

extending the school again after the recent expansion from 2/3 form to

one form entry. The latest Council position would mean that children living

in existing properties would have to travel to Knutsford.

10.7 To address these difficulties, the proposals give no indication of how new

residents would be integrated into the Village. There is virtually no

permeability between the proposals and the existing village. New

residents would walk past no attractions in the Village to catch a bus or

train and the grocery shop only offers a top-up facility. Crucially, the

social, religious and sporting centres in the Village are beyond walking

distance for most. As will be shown, the travel isochrones are not

reflective of reality.

10.8 The existing LP and the emerging LPS, together with the Mobberley Parish

Plan, envisage that Mobberley should develop organically until at least

2030. It is a desirable place to live and there is pressure for housing on

infill plots, rounding off and redevelopment of sites. Government policies

about converting agricultural buildings, a maximum of three per holding,

will all push up the windfall delivery and increase the Village organically as

envisaged.

10.9 Put briefly, the assimilation of a development of this scale and the

integration of the residents it would bring would be far too large for the


22

Village to handle over too short a period. This reinforces the view that this

development should not be supported.

11. The creation of new public open space

11.1 The proposed open space/sports field is something of a misnomer. It is on

a site that was acquired historically for a sports and social club for Ilford

employees, but was refused planning permission on GB grounds. The club

was eventually located in Great Warford. Many of the same objections

pertain today.

11.2 The area available for the sports field has reduced as some land originally

within the red line application site has been sold off to residential

properties backing onto the field for garden extensions. Enforcement

action is pending. The site location application plan has been amended to

reflect this. Incidentally, it is believed that the land to the east of the

sports field is also within the Applicants’ ownership, though this is not

shown on the application plans.

11.3 The Council accepts that this phase of the development is in the Cheshire

Green Belt and would constitute inappropriate development, attracting a

presumption against unless very special circumstances can be shown to

outweigh the in principle harm to the GB and all other harm. The Rule 6

party do not accept that this could be shown and the Council’s view that a

balance should be taken is disputed.

11.4 If we look first at the benefits of the scheme, it is contended that this

forms part of the open space provision for the residential element and

possibly the employment component of the appeal site. This is not clear.

However, what it fails to recognise is that the facility is remote from the

residential development and could not be overlooked and its use

monitored from the properties. What is needed is open space within the

built area of the site and not something remote from it. What it would do

is provide some allotments, which are desirable, though not an essential

element of this proposal as the Parish Council own land elsewhere to meet

this demand.

11.5 The sports pitch and other parts of the open space are duplicates of what

is already within the Village. There is a sports field and football pitch

within a similar distance from the housing as that currently proposed.

There has not been a village football team for many years and in the

Parish Plan consultation procedures this was not sought after.

11.6 The Parish Council also offers three other areas of open space in the

Village. There is 10+ hectares on Town Lane, a significant area of open


23

space around the Scout Hut off Hall Bank and the land at the Victory and

Memorial Hall together with the small Jane Taylor play park. The Village is

extremely well blessed with open space. In this context, it is also worth

noting that the Village is surrounded by extensive open space by virtue of

being located within open countryside, which is ‘borrowed’ by many for

leisure activities and pursuits.

11.7 Thus, for a large residential site, the open space is in the wrong space, is

unnecessary and is the wrong type of amenity provision for a large

residential estate.

11.8 Turning to the other aspects of harm, it would result in harm to the

character and appearance of the Mobberley Conservation Area, the loss of

Grade 3 agricultural land and diminish the openness of the GB.

11.9 Importantly, it now seems that vehicle, and in fact any, access to the

open space from the residential development is in question. It is divided

from the built areas by a track owned by United Utilities (UU). UU is a

public company and, as such, bound to work in the best interests of its

shareholders. Consequently, it would be duty bound to secure the best

return for allowing access.

11.10 Incidentally, the claim by the Appellants at a recent Cheshire East

Strategic Planning Meeting stated that an agreement had been reached

with UU on this application, is not accepted. We followed this up with UU

and they were clear that at the time this proof was written they had

reached no agreement and, in fact, said they, whereas they were aware of

the difficulty, they had not yet been approached.

11.11 Crucially, as currently envisaged the proposal would not meet the

requirements of Sport England. If the Appellants could not negotiate a

satisfactory access with UU, then the situation would become far worse.

For such schemes vehicle access is required. This is essential on sports

fields to give access for emergency vehicles. It is also necessary to give

access for bulk materials used in ground maintenance and general

maintenance equipment. The minimum requirements of Sport England

would not be met by one fall back option, namely by building the changing

facilities etc, car parking to the west of the UU access and letting users

walk to the sports field. Neither would it be realistic for users of the

allotments to convey the necessary materials to and from a remote

parking area.

11.12 Bearing this in mind, if the sports field etc is an essential part of the

development, then UU hold a ransom strip, potentially yielding up to one

third of the equity of the entire residential site. Although the Council


24

submits that this is not a planning but a legal matter, this is not the case.

The reason for this is simple.

11.13 Any costs that arise as a consequence of acquiring the necessary rights to

cross the UU access, would put up the cost of the scheme and have a

material effect on the Economic Viability Assessment. In turn, the cost of

acquisition/access rights can be used to offset against any infrastructure

or other cost benefits, such as affordable housing, for the community.

Thus, in this case, the economics of the site and potential viability would

be adversely affected and this would have severe consequences for the

planning merits of the scheme.

11.14 Taking all these factors together, it is clear that there are no very special

circumstances for this element of the scheme that would outweigh the

harm to the GB and all other harm. In addition, access remains

unresolved and, consequently, this again is a cogent reason for resisting

this scheme.

12. The impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic

12.1 The substantive evidence on this topic has been given previously by the

Rule 6 party’s highway and traffic witness. All I do here is to draw

together the key conclusions to take forward to the overall planning

balance.

12.2 The Transport Assessment (TA) draws the base information from surveys

taken in March 2014 and applies the mid-range TEMPRO growth rates.

Surveys taken by the Rule 6 Party in March 2016 do not correlate closely

with Appellants’ predictions and the higher figures should be carried on to

the design year, which should now be 2021. No check figures or other

validation appear to have been taken on behalf of the Appellants. As for

generation and attraction by the proposed development, there is no

dispute and these can be assigned to the network in the ratios envisaged

by the TA.

12.3 In terms of junction capacities, the three onto Town Lane/Knutsford Road

at Ilford Way, Smith Lane and Broadoak Lane all operate below theoretical

and practical capacity at present in both the morning and evening peak

periods. However, the Broadoak Lane Junction is observed to regularly

exhibit queues of 12 or more cars in the morning peak, which can take

several minutes to clear.

12.4 The problem junction identified in the TA is in Knutsford at the Brook

Street/Hollow Lane junction and then through to the A50 Holmes Chapel

Road. Even today this junction suffers from severe and unpredictable


25

congestion, with queues extending back at times as far as Knutsford Fire

Station, with a queue time of 15+ minutes. This is compounded because

the exit from Hollow Lane is invariably blocked by traffic queuing back

from the A50 and compounded by right turn movements into the Aldi

store and King Street.

12.5 Moving forward to 2021, the situation becomes much worse, with the local

highway authority (LHA) concluding that the junctions in Knutsford will be

considerably in excess of theoretical capacity. This meets the test of

severity evinced by the Framework (paragraph 32).

12.6 To address this problem, the LHA is requiring a contribution to an

improvement scheme in Knutsford. However, the improvement, which

only came to light a week before the preparation of this evidence, is

described as an interim scheme. Nevertheless its total cost would be

approaching £1.2m and our assessment is that it would provide very little

meaningful improvement and certainly not be cost effective. The Rule 6

party firmly believes that to materially reduce or remove the degree of

severity at the design year a major improvement would be necessary,

costing very much more.

12.7 As it is, the interim scheme has no provenance in terms of design or

Council approval and would require contributions from a number of

housing and employment schemes. No assessment of the interim proposal

has been shared with us.

12.8 Unfortunately, the Council does not have an approved CIL scheme,

whereby contributions could be drawn from development and pooled to

meet infrastructure shortcomings /improvements. Importantly, fivee

contributions have already been required to fund traffic improvements in

Knutsford – Aldi, Parkgate Lane, Parkgate, Oliver Valves and Booth’.

Having regard to the Government’s edict that no more than five

contributions can be made to general highway improvements since 2010,

this would be the sixth and, therefore, would fall foul of Government

Policy.

12.9 Within the TA, no recognition of other congestion points has been

identified or been examined. These occur on the A538 approach to the

M56; the Knutsford Road approach to Wilmslow at the King’s Arms

roundabout; and the Brook Lane junction with the Wilmslow/Alderley

Road. Although arguably more remote than the Knutsford junctions, traffic

from the development would have direct impact on the operations of

these junctions.


26

12.10 Modelling of the single access road to the site, Ilford Way junction with

Town Lane, estimates that this is within acceptable flow to capacity ratios,

even with the additional development traffic in 2018. However, our latest

traffic counts observe that traffic is already above the levels predicted by

the Appellants for the design year. We contend that traffic delays at the

Ilford Way/Town Lane junction will be more severe than the modelling

suggests and, if this development was to proceed, a scheme to improve

this junction is required.

12.11 Turning to the sustainability access of the site, the TA draws a simple 2

km walk and 5 km cycle isochrone from the centre of the appeal site.

However, this is wholly unrepresentative of the actual distances from the

centre of the site to destinations. Moreover, the routes that would have to

be taken for journeys are poor bordering on unsuitable for pedestrian and

cycle use.

12.12 Footways linking the site along Town Lane are narrow and are only on one

side of the road. Elsewhere, for example on Smith Lane, footways are

none existent and only unmade verges are available. There are no

dedicated cycle routes or segregation or even protection. Finally, street

lighting is inhibited by the proximity of the Airport and, while aesthetically

pleasing, the current provision is generally poor to non-existent. A table

has been prepared to show the actual travel distances, which are realistic

and would be far less attractive.

12.13 Although 2 km is considered to be an acceptable walk distance, research

has shown that most people would not walk that distance, but 90% would

choose to use a car. In fact, evidence shows that only 10% of journeys

over 1.375 km would be by foot. The reasonable walking distance is that

which 50% would walk and this is estimated to be below 0.9 km.

12.14 Bus stops lie some 600 m from the centre of the site to meet a half-hourly

service to Knutsford and Wilmslow (with onward service to Altrincham).

The rail Station with a service connecting to Knutsford and Chester to the

east and Altrincham, Stockport and Manchester to the west and north.

This service is half hourly during peak hours and hourly at off-peak times.

The Station is 1.5 km from the centre of the appeal site, but would have

to be accessed along roads with no footway or lighting, making walking

highly unlikely and cycling challenging. Shops are 700m from the centre

of the site and the school is more than 2km.

12.15 There is no pedestrian crossing facility apart from the ‘Pelican Crossing’

located near the village shops. No improvements are proposed to facilitate

pedestrian crossing near the Ilford Way access road. Our contention is

that a development of this scale requires improvements for traffic and


27

pedestrians at the Ilford Way access point, such as a roundabout with

pedestrian refuges.

12.16 In summary, the additional traffic generated by this proposal would add to

traffic problems in all directions. This would be severe in Knutsford, with

no improvement in sight. Conditions in other directions would also be

poor. Although some services and facilities are within walking distance,

many are by way of poor routes in terms of segregated footways and

lighting. No mitigation measures are proposed for the residents of

Mobberley, who are adversely affected by this development. Overall, this

is not, as claimed, a highly accessible site by sustainable means of

transport.

13. The sustainability of the site

13.1 The Framework defines sustainability as the golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking, and looks for proposals to be assessed against the three dimensions, economic, social and environmental. The Framework also sets out the 12 core planning principles underpinning planning decision taking and these provide useful guidance on how the sustainability accreditation of individual applications should be assessed. These principles have been factored in when weighing the benefits and disbenefits of the appeal scheme.

Economic benefits

13.2 As for the economic dimension, this particular proposal would generate most of the benefits of any housing and employment development and Government recognises the importance of these. There would be the short term construction jobs and purchase of building materials and, in the future the generation of service jobs such as cleaning, child care, decorating and household repairs. A proportion of the income of new residents would be disposable and this could be used to support the Village facilities and other activities in the Village, whether through the Parish Council precept or other less formal organisations and events.

13.3 This scheme could also create some new employment, and some of the jobs would be available for local people. However, this is tempered somewhat by the uncertainty about when the employment would be delivered and the lack of linkage with the transport system. Crucially, nothing is proposed to improve or adopt the existing public transport options. Large vehicles would have some distance to travel to reach the motorway network and have to travel though either Knutsford or Wilmslow to gain access. The more direct route to the M56 is unavailable, owing to the weight restriction on Burleyhurst Lane and Newton Hall Lane.

13.4 No claim is made that the construction workers would be drawn from village residents and there is no evidence produced to show that a particular level of unemployment exists in the village. As such, it seems likely that many if not most would commute into the Village by private car as the TA concedes. Target figures for trips by sustainable means are only


28

19% and this uses the under estimate of actual distances to key destinations. The likely figure would be much less, probably around 10%.

13.5 There are some shops in the Village offering a top-up shopping facility, a Post Office, bakers, chemist and takeaway. This means that most large convenience shopping and virtually all comparative retail activity would be undertaken elsewhere. A Doctor’s surgery, a Dentist and vet are located in the Village centre. There are several pubs in the Parish, but perhaps surprisingly none offer a convenient walking route to and from the appeal site, with the nearest The Railway at some 1.6Km and The Bulls Head 2.1Km.

13.6 The appeal development would bring nothing to the table in terms of shops and services and with the centre of the Village being a walking distance of some 700 m from the centre of the site a considerable proportion of trips are likely to be made by car. Taken together, these factors dent the sustainability accreditation of this dimension, though it might just be judged marginally positive overall.

Social benefits

13.7 Turning to the social benefits, the big gain on a site like this would normally be the affordable housing provision. However, in this instance the assessed provision of 5% would fall woefully short of the 30% required by policy. Even then, the offer for discounted house purchase some 20% below market price would be unaffordable by locals and key workers. This would not address the social needs of the Village and extended area. The Appellants’ EVA for the scheme has been challenged elsewhere. Notwithstanding, if the 5% is accepted then this is another powerful argument against releasing this site for housing.

13.8 The Appellants argue that there is an infant and primary school in the Village, which is true. However, the School is not in the built area of the Village and, owing to the relationship of the appeal site to the school, the new homes proposed would have a devastating effect on the existing village. The current school roll is intended to cater for the Village to grow organically and would then be running at a maximum. This upper limit is expected to be reached for the school year 2017/18.

13.9 There would, therefore, not be room for the additional children from the appeal site without further expansion. The Council has consistently and vehemently refused to entertain expansion of the School into the Green Belt and the current site offers no room for expansion. It was only by buying Mode Cottage at an extraordinary price that the recent extension could be built. No contribution for primary education (except for special needs) would be sought from the appeal scheme as the Council now looks at the available education offer within a 2-mile radius.

13.10 Looked at in this way, the children from the appeal site would gain preference over children being brought up in the existing village centre. The appeal site is nearer to the school and distance is a key determinant of school catchment.


29

13.11 All secondary education would be remote and, being more than 3-miles distant, would require travel to be provided at the cost of the public purse.

13.12 As noted there is a Vet’s and Doctor’s surgery and a dentist in the Village, but of course no hospital. Next, there would be the support for the Church along with other organisations, including the village sports and social clubs, and these would benefit from the input of newcomers. On the downside, the remoteness of many services would not make it easy for those living in the affordable housing, who could be expected to have a lower car ownership, with many reliant on a modest bus service to access a much wider range of social services. This not the same as being able to walk.

13.13 However, the key point is that, when completed, this would be a very large increase in the village population, realistically approaching 50% and, if the Design and Access Statement is anything to go by, would offer no permeability of layout to assist integration with existing residents. With no timescale for additional employment opportunities in the Village, in the early years there would be wholesale migration out of the Village for employment, most shopping and some health, education and leisure pursuits.

13.14 The TA indicates that 81% of journeys would rely on the car. This exodus each day would do little to add to the social fabric of the Village and counts as significant negative. There can be little doubt that the preferred option of small scale development over the Plan period would be much easier to assimilate into village life. Other than the sports field, which would be superfluous, the development would bring no social facilities to the table.

13.15 Against this background, it is hard to reconcile this proposal with the Framework (paragraphs 54 and 55) that looks for new development to reflect local needs and be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of the rural settlement. As such, the social benefits of the proposed development for the existing village would be extremely limited, and at best marginal.

Environmental benefits

13.16 Finally, when considering the environmental dimension, benefits are very definitely harder to find. As for the effects from noise and the general environmental climate, the adverse impacts on the GB and enjoyment and character and appearance of the Mobberley Conservation Area and Listed Buildings, these would be negative for the reasons given previously.

13.17 Turning to the accessibility of the Village, walking to and from key attractions would be difficult and the opportunities for safe cycling within the Village are almost non-existent. Public rights of way would offer leisure opportunities, but the harm to views into the Conservation Area temper this as a benefit.

13.18 In addition, there are any number of environmental questions posed, but left unanswered. These include unresolved concerns about air quality, odour, land contamination, flooding and drainage and traffic impact. The


30

bus service is modest and would not be supported financially by the appeal scheme. It is reported as under pressure for lack of funding virtually every time it comes up for review and cannot be guaranteed. The Travel Plan target seems optimistic and misses out several key features and does nothing to address the travel modes for the existing Harman staff. Busses, of course, do not run in the evenings or on Sundays, which limits the benefits for leisure and some other pursuits.

13.19 Rail travel is not an option other than in combination with car travel, as the nearest station is not accessible by a reasonable pedestrian route, not proposed for improvement as part of the scheme.

13.20 On the topic of ecology, with the possible exception of the great crested newt, the appeal site does not host any particular asset of national merit, with most inhabitants being of low interest value. There may be rarer visitors, but the redevelopment of the site would provide some opportunity to enhance the habitat. Next, there would be the loss of Grade 3 agricultural land. This is a negative component, especially if it proved to be Grade 3a.

13.21 Summarising on the environmental dimension, this falls well short of a positive sustainable outcome for a large number of reasons, some of which, like noise, are compelling in their own right, with others contributing to an unsatisfactory or unknown outcome to be weighed in the balance.

14. Noise issues from aircraft, traffic and the adjacent industrial

estate

14.1 The starting point for this is the Council’s EHO, who advises that the site

is severely impacted by noise as it is located within the Preferred Noise

Route for departing and arriving aircraft to MIA. The EHO considers that

with extensive mitigation it is possible to achieve acceptable noise levels

for indoor habitable rooms. With regard to outdoor amenity areas, the

EHO recommended initially that this could not be addressed to satisfy the

World Health Organisation (WHO) noise standards for an unprotected

garden and the application should be refused. The EHO resiled from this

stance on the offer acoustic canopies within gardens to provide some

areas, which he was advised would meet WHO standards and also meet

the Framework and PPG policy about designing out noise exposure. There

is also the community area of tranquillity on the sports field that the EHO

is advised would be acceptable in noise terms.

14.2 The Rule 6 party disagrees with these conclusions for several reasons. The

first is that noise expectation in a rural area is different from that in an

urban environment. The second is that, whereas it is accepted that one

can design noise out for internal accommodation, this would be at the

expense of creating residential ‘tombs’, with no possibility of opening

windows or natural ventilation. It would also create an unnatural situation


31

insofar as residents looking out of windows would expect to hear noises

from birds, animals, transport and even planes. They would not be able to

enjoy some of the very features that make rural life attractive.

14.3 As for external quiet areas the need to erect noise canopies in garden

areas is a clear indication that the noise climate is not acceptable for living

in this location. Even then, there is no evidence that they would be

effective and if they were, the vision of residents ‘diving for cover’ every

minute or so could be a comedy sketch. Thus, there is no outdoor living

space that is at or below the recommended 50-55dB criterion, and this

includes the tranquillity communal space.

14.4 In addition, as no air quality measurements have taken place, it has not

been appreciated that the proposed shelters would hold aircraft engine

fumes making the canopies potentially harmful. This phenomenon is

experienced with existing car ports in the Village and is again a reason

why this approach must be discouraged.

14.5 The long term health effects have been dismissed by the Appellants and

the Council’s EHO. This is despite accredited and peer reviewed reports

that there is a long term adverse effect on health and consequent costs

due to exposure to noise of the levels that would be experienced on this

site. The AEF Report of January 2016 looks at the correlation between

aviation noise and health. It concludes that the cost associated with sleep

disturbance alone for every individual living on this site would be between

£600 and £900 each year. With some 1,000 residents possible the costs

would approach £1m per annum.

14.6 Crucially, the Appellants’ Noise Assessment misses several key points. The

first, and a determining point, is that building on this site would

compromise undertakings given by MIA and prejudice their flight

operations for the future. Secondly, the Assessment does not using the

most up-to-date information. The data base is from 2012, during a period

of recession, with the latest information being from 2014, which gives a

much worse noise climate. In fact, the 2008 figure is the highest for

movements at over 200,000. The following recession dented this

substantially, reducing the figure by more than 25%, with the current

figure still well below in the 170,000s.

14.7 The third point is that there is an absence of an important measurement

and that is the dBLAmax and the number of times that is reached or

approached. This can be critical to sleep. It is measured by MIA, but not

released. Next, and also important, the MIA is currently operating at less

than 50% of its capacity and the Noise Assessment should take into

account MIA’s forecast growth.


32

14.8 Moreover, the planned reconfiguration of the Terminals at the Airport is