The Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester - East Manchester Alterations Inspector's Report
THE UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
for the
CITY OF MANCHESTER
EAST MANCHESTER ALTERATIONS
INSPECTOR’S
REPORT
Chapter 1
OUTSTANDING
OBJECTIONS
1. Objection EM00049FD/11 - General Aviation Awareness CouncilSummary of Objection
1.1 The UDP should recognise GA (General Aviation) issues – helipads play an important role in urban areas and a policy should be in place that will enable future/existing operators to understand the criteria against which future applications would be tested.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
1.2 Annex B to PPG13 provides advice on aviation, amongst other things. The advice includes the requirement that local planning authorities will need to consider the role of small airports and airfields in serving business, recreational, training and emergency services and that they should take account of the economic, environmental and social impacts of GA on local and regional economics when determining planning applications and in formulating their plan policies and proposals.
1.3 No specific mention is made in PPG13 of helipads and there is no requirement that plan policies concerning GA issues should be specific to a plan sub-area as opposed to the whole plan area. Furthermore, PPG12 advises that strategic transport facilities and other infrastructure requirements should be covered in a general part of the plan.
1.4 I conclude that GA issues in general, and helipads in particular, should be matters for consideration in the impending full review of the UDP.
RECOMMENDATION
1.5 I recommend that no modification is made to the proposed alterations to the UDP.
2. Objection EM000170FD/27 - Government Office for the North WestSummary of Objection
2.1 The UDP should be altered to include those parts of the East Manchester Regeneration Area that extend beyond Areas 3 and 4.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
2.2 Area 4 is the UDP sub-area ‘East Manchester’, to which the proposed alterations relate, and includes the majority of North Manchester Business Park (NMBP). However, a small part of the NMBP is within Area 3 and the proposed alterations therefore include minor amendments to Area 3 policies and their reasoned justification, but only where they relate to the NMBP. No alterations are proposed that would relate to any other area as modifications to the UDP Alteration.
2.3 The East Manchester Regeneration Area (EMRA) includes the majority of Area 4 and minor parts of other areas, including the aforementioned part of Area 3. No specific reason has been given for extending the proposed alterations simply to recognise the extent of the EMRA. The proposed alterations are clearly focused on Area 4 and there is no justification for undermining that focus merely to recognise a boundary that could change and that could, in any event, be given consideration in the impending full review of the UDP.
RECOMMENDATION
2.4 I recommend that no modification is made to the proposed alterations to the UDP.
3. Objection EM00180FD/30 - Network Rail (Infrastructure) LtdSummary of Objection
3.1 Disused railway land should be protected to facilitate reinstatement of four tracks between Ardwick Junction and Guide Bridge.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
3.2 The disused railway land required to facilitate reinstatement of four tracks between Ardwick Junction and Guide Bridge is wholly within the ownership of Network Rail. There is therefore no need to make specific reference in the proposed alterations to protection of this land. Furthermore, the justification paragraph proposed to be modified, which simply states some existing and proposed items of major infrastructure in sub-area 12, is not the appropriate place for mention of this future possibility.
RECOMMENDATION
3.3 I recommend that no modification is made to the proposed alterations to the UDP.
4. Objection EM00150FD/26 - English Heritage – North West RegionSummary of Objection
4.1 A sentence should be added in paragraph 4.4.3 of the reasoned justification to policy EM8 to require that new uses and alterations of existing buildings will need to pay careful attention to the special interest of historic buildings and the area.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
4.2 Sub-area 4, Ancoats, is a conservation area that includes many listed buildings. Sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require that special regard be paid to the preservation of the character and appearance of conservation areas and the architectural and historic interest of listed buildings. Furthermore, UDP city-wide development control policies DC18.1 and DC19.1 specifically relate to conservation areas and listed buildings and expand upon the aforementioned requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. There is therefore no need to make reference to these statutory requirements in the reasoned justification to policy EM8, which deals with other provisions for the Ancoats area.
RECOMMENDATION
4.3 I recommend that no modification is made to the proposed alterations to the UDP.
5. Objections EM00192FD/31 & EM00262PC/31 - Tesco Stores LtdSummary of Objection
5.1 Proposed policy EM3, both in its original form and as amended, does not make provision for out of centre retail developments and does not therefore accord with the sequential approach required by PPG6.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
5.2 Proposed policy EM3 relates to the specific circumstances found in East Manchester and identifies the Sportcity, Openshaw and Newton Heath District Centres as being the preferred location for retail and other developments. The policy also recognises that edge of centre developments may be permitted if need has been demonstrated, if no sites within the district centres are available and if the viability and vitality of existing centres would not be harmed. This sequential approach, as far as it goes, accords with guidance in PPG6. The policy also recognises the need to provide for local needs shopping in neighbourhood shopping centres and within residential areas.
5.3 Proposed policy EM3 does not mention the possibility of out of centre retail developments. However, the policy does not specifically preclude this type of development, which is the exclusive subject of city wide UDP policy S2.2. Taken together, the two policies accord with guidance in PPG6 and reflect the full sequential approach to the location of shopping developments contained therein. There is no reason to undermine the focus of proposed policy EM3 by including provision for out of centre retail developments, when that provision is met elsewhere. In this regard, the Government Office for the North West has not objected to the wording of the proposed policy and the Secretary of State has not directed that the UDP be altered to reflect PPG6, which was published after adoption of the UDP.
RECOMMENDATION
5.4 I recommend that no modification is made to the proposed alterations to the UDP.
6. Objections EM00178FD/30 & EM00179FD/30 - Network Rail (Infrastructure) LtdSummary of Objection
6.1 Proposed policies EM14 and EM17 should include reference to the protection of land for the reinstatement of the ‘Midland Curve’.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
6.2 The reinstatement of the Midland Curve is one of several proposals, put forward by the Objector, for enhancements to the ‘Manchester Hub’, the core of rail operations within the north-west region and where three main rail routes converge. The land required for the reinstatement of the Midland Curve is not all within the ownership of the Objector, Network Rail, and part of the land is now in use as a parking area.
6.3 The Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan does not include the Midland Curve as a possible future transport scheme within its strategy. The Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study, which was published in June 2001, does not examine the possible reinstatement of the Midland Curve or include this element in possible long-term projects. Furthermore, though the Strategic Rail Authority recognises that smaller schemes can be of benefit in their own right, there is no support in PPG12 for the inclusion in a partial review of a UDP of just one element of a possible transport enhancement scheme that is not programmed and for which no finance has been committed.
6.4 The protection of land necessary for the possible reinstatement of the Midland Curve is not a matter that should be the subject of alterations to a section of part 2 of the UDP but should be a matter for consideration in the impending full review of the UDP.
RECOMMENDATION
6.5 I recommend that no modification is made to the proposed alterations to the UDP.
7. Objections EM00079FD/17 & EM00261PC/17 - Stockport M B CSummary of Objection
7.1 Insufficient justification has been given for the proposed narrowing of the Lower Medlock Valley area of protection (second sentence in item ii. of policy EM1), which would set a precedent and undermine the defence of other valley areas in Manchester.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
7.2 The Lower Medlock Valley area of protection includes areas of land, on both sides of the river, that were previously developed. These areas have been used in the past for various purposes but were cleared in the 1960’s and 70’s. The Council proposes to remove the previously developed areas of land from the area of protection, which would result in a significant narrowing of the area of protection.
7.3 Some of the previously developed areas are underused and generally overgrown, such as that to the west of Lime Bank Street, and others are inaccessible to the public, such as that to the north-east of Gurney Street. These areas make little contribution to the visual or recreational value of the area of protection. Allowing development of these areas would provide the opportunity to focus enhancement of the valley area on those areas closest to the river where the greatest environmental benefit could be achieved. A few of the areas proposed for exclusion from the area of protection, however, do have some amenity value and/or make a positive contribution to the appearance of the area.
7.4 The area to the south-east of dwellings on Pattishall Close is an informal recreation area that is likely to have amenity value for nearby residents. It also lies close to the river and its exclusion from the area of protection would result in an unnecessary narrowing of the protected area and in the loss of a recreation area that could be improved to benefit both nearby residents and the value of the area of protection.
7.5 The narrow area on the south side of Ashton New Road is formerly landscaped and continues a similar area that bounds the road to the east. Ashton New Road is a busy main thoroughfare and is enhanced by the attractive landscaped area. The exclusion of this area would harm the appearance of the area and would result in an unnecessary narrowing of the area of protection where the river passes under Ashton New Road.
7.6 Part of the underused area to the west of Lime Bank Street is a narrow strip of land to the north-west of Aden Close. Development of this narrow area would have an incongruous form, would unnecessarily intrude into the area of protection and would compromise the amenities of residents on Aden Close.
7.7 The circumstances considered here are specific to the Lower Medlock Valley and are unlikely to be similar to circumstances found in any other valleys in the Manchester area. The proposed narrowing of the Lower Medlock Valley area of protection would not set a precedent for, or undermine the defence of, other valley areas in Manchester.
7.8 The proposed narrowing of the Lower Medlock Valley area of protection would provide opportunities for making the most efficient use of previously developed land and would, with the three aforementioned exceptions, focus enhancement and improvements to those parts where the greatest benefit can be achieved. The proposal would not undermine the objectives of policy SPF8 of the Greater Manchester Strategic Planning Framework and would not set a precedent for similar proposals elsewhere in Manchester.
RECOMMENDATION
7.9 I recommend that no modification is made to the proposed alterations to the UDP except for the retention of the following areas in the Lower Medlock Valley area of protection:
a. south-east of dwellings on Pattishall Close;
b. south of Ashton New Road;
c. north-west of Aden Close.
8. Objections EM00249SD/37 & EM00255PC/37 - United UtilitiesSummary of Objection
8.1 The Objector is concerned about the mention of ‘sustainable drainage systems’ in paragraph 4.6.5 as they are not able to adopt any Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) other than surface water sewers draining to a balancing pond provided and if certain conditions are met.
Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions
8.2 Paragraph 4.6.5 is not clear for it could be construed to mean that developments will incorporate measures including sustainable drainage systems. It might be that a proposed development would not adversely affect the flood plain and that, therefore, no measures are necessary to alleviate flood risk. It might also be that a proposed development would adversely affect the flood plain but that sustainable drainage systems are not necessary to alleviate the adverse effect.
8.3 Paragraph 4.6.5 does correctly identify PPG25 as being the source of advice on flood risk and alleviating measures. However, it is not just Table 1 in PPG25 that developers should have regard to.
8.4 Paragraph 4.6.5, by attempting to be specific, is ambiguous and should be altered by omitting mention of measures and sustainable drainage systems and by simply indicating that developers should have regard to PPG25.
RECOMMENDATION
8.5 I recommend that paragraph 4.6.5 of the proposed alterations to the UDP is altered by omitting all text after “…affect the flood plain area” and by adding the sentence “Developers should have regard to PPG25”. I also recommend that other references to PPG25 in the proposed alterations be similarly amended.
Chapter 2
CONDITIONALLY
WITHDRAWN
OBJECTIONS
2.1 Forty-nine of the objections to the East Manchester Alterations of the Manchester UDP were conditionally withdrawn prior to the Inquiry on 8 May 2003. They were conditionally withdrawn by Objectors on the basis of proposed changes to the Alterations and other action agreed by the Council. The following is a list of the forty-nine objections and the stage at which the changes, where appropriate, were proposed by the Council: