Agenda and minutes

Venue: Training and Conference Suite, First Floor, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU

Contact: Michael Garraway  4716

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 26 KB

    Members must indicate at this stage any items on the agenda in which they must declare an interest.  Members must verbally give notice of their interest at the meeting and complete the form attached with this agenda. 

     

    Members are also advised to take advice with regard to any matter where there is potential bias or predetermination in any business to be considered at the meeting and whether they should take part in decision making at the meeting.

     

    Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's adopted Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any discloseable pecuniary interest; personal interest and/or prejudicial interest required of them and, in the case of any discloseable pecuniary interest or prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item, unless permitted otherwise within the Code of Conduct.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no declarations of interest.

2.

Erection of new dwellinghouse on land at Bamford Old Hall, Off Bury and Rochdale Old Road, Rochdale

    Minutes:

    The Director of Economy introduced planning application 15/01001 for the erection of new dwelling house on land at Bamford Old Hall, Off Bury and Rochdale Old Road, Rochdale.

     

    In introducing the report the Planning Officer informed the Committee of 65 additional letters of objection having been received following publication of the submitted report. The following additional points were raised within the late submissions which had not been included within the submitted report, as follows:-

    An objector has commissioned ‘Townscape’ – Chartered Town Planning and Heritage Consultant to comment on the planning application as follows:-.

    ·         Believes that no impact assessment has been carried out of non-designated heritage assets.

    ·         The applicant’s site is outside of land directly associated with the Fenton Family in so much of the landscaped are immediately surrounding the former Hall. For this reason considers this element of significance as low.

    ·         Has not seen any archaeological report for the application site that provides any evidence to the two lost buildings so the evidential value is questionable.

    ·         Considers the significance of the ice house is low.

    ·         The pond is located within open agricultural land and the map regression within the heritage report confirms that the pond was never a feature of a man made landscape or formal gardens of Bamford Hall. Therefore he believes it is more likely than not, that the pond was used as a supply of water to cattle and for crops rather than part of a formal landscape.

    ·         The stone edging could have been provided to ensure the pond doesn’t collapse from cattle. The pond is informal with little or no ornamentation that would be expected from a formal water body contributing to a formal landscaping park. I also note that no historical evidence has been provided to accurately determine the historical nature of the pond.

    ·         The pond due to its informal nature is of low significance.

    ·         Pleasure grounds were often designed in a formal manner and used for the purposes of establishing the overall character of the owner and the estate as a whole. He notes that no evidence has been provided to determine the actual design of the pleasure grounds and I believe that the grounds referred to are merely a woodland walk within natural woodland. Their significance is classified as of medium heritage significance and I would suggest their significance as low on the basis of the woodland being natural woodland and no evidence provided to justify its actual historic design or appearance.

    ·          He believes that the heritage potential of the site is low significance and the lack of evidential and historic value does not provide enough justification to support the very special circumstances for development within the greenbelt. The heritage report relates to the historic potential of the former Bamford Hall as a whole, however, the application site was part of the farmland owned by the Bamford Hall estate and did not form part of the formal garden area.

    ·         The application does not provide for any management plan/schedule of works or implementation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

3.

an outline application (including access only) for up to 205 dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated landscaping, open space, access arrangements and car parking provision on land off Hollin Lane, Middleton (resubmission 14/00849/OUT).

    Minutes:

    The Director of Economy reported on submitted planning application 15/01183/OUT, an outline application (including access only) for up to 205 dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated landscaping, open space, access arrangements and car parking provision on land off Hollin Lane, Middleton (resubmission 14/00849/OUT).

     

    Further to the submitted report the Director advised that 546 letters of objection and 3 letters of support have been received to date. Many of these objection letters were received following publication of the submitted report. Approximately 340 of these objections were copies of a standard letter from addresses in Middleton, Oldham, Heywood, Radcliffe, Bury, Ramsbottom, Bacup, Blackley and Rochdale.  The objections were summarised as:

    • No proven need for the developments - Middleton population has declined by over 2000 people and there are 800 houses for sale in the Middleton area.
    • Greater Manchester Health and Wellbeing legislation, to which RMBC is a signatory, mandates that areas of social and urban deprivation, into which Langley and Hollin estates fall, are required to be provided with green spaces for wellbeing and amenity. Developing these spaces will remove that ability.
    • TW and WH are taking advantage of RMBC’s lack of an agreed or up-to-date UDP and the replacement Core Strategy has not been agreed. RMBC is therefore targeting all the remaining greenspace land in Middleton. Middleton is being targeted to meet the Borough quota of large housing developments at the expense of its green space.
    • Lanes cannot cope with any future development as traffic is already congested and development would have a negative impact regardless of traffic control measures.
    • Increase in flood risk to Hollin Lane and surrounding area, drains will be overburdened and fields will no longer store water.
    • Additional traffic including construction traffic will accelerate need for highway repairs.
    • Potential for increased crime and anti-social behaviour if the properties are bought to rent.
    • Houses would have an oppressive impact on surrounding houses and would be over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity of Hollin Lane and Langley Lane

     

    The Planning and Highways Officers provided responses to each of the issues raised. 

     

    Having been offered the option of addressing the Committee on applications either separately on each item or collectively, Mr K. Shackill, who was to address the Committee on behalf of the objectors in respect of each item, indicated a wish to make a collective address.

     

    The Committee considered the views of Mr K. Shackill, who addressed the Committee in respect of this application and in respect of applications 14/00851/OUT, on behalf of the objectors.

     

    Having been offered the option of addressing the Committee on applications 15/0183/OUT and 14/00851/OUT either separately on each item or collectively, Mr S Bell who was to address the Committee on behalf the applicant in respect of each item, indicated a wish to make a collective address.

     

    The Committee considered the views of Mr S. Bell and Ms V. Eccleston on behalf of the applicant, who addressed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

an outline application (including access only) for up to 150 dwellings (Use Class C3), potential primary school site with associated landscaping, open space, access arrangements and car parking provision on land off Langley Lane, Middleton.

    Minutes:

    The Director of Economy reported on submitted planning application 15/01195/OUT (a resubmission of 14/00851/OUT), an outline application (including access only) for up to 150 dwellings (Use Class C3), potential primary school site with associated landscaping, open space, access arrangements and car parking provision on land off Langley Lane, Middleton.

     

    Further to the submitted report the Director advised 565 letters of objection and 3 letters of support have been received to date. Many of these objection letters were received since publication of the submitted report, though some were from the same addresses. Approximately 340 of these objections are copies of a standard letter from addresses in Middleton, Oldham, Heywood, Radcliffe, Bury, Ramsbottom, Bacup, Blackley and Rochdale.

     

    With regard to the offer of land for the purposes of a primary school, the Director advised that this was offered in addition to the developer contribution towards primary school places.  Members were advised that, should they be minded to accept the school land, this would be contrary to the recommendation within the submitted report and they would need to resolve accordingly. 

     

    The Committee considered the views of Mr Shackill who had earlier addressed the Committee in consideration of application 15/01183/OUT on behalf of the objectors.

     

    The Committee considered the views of Mr S. Bell and V. Ecclestone on behalf of the applicant who had earlier addressed the Committee in consideration of application 15/01183/OUT.

     

    The Committee considered comments of Councillor Neil Emmott who had earlier addressed the Committee in consideration of application 15/01183/OUT.

     

    DECIDED – That (1) planning permission be approved for option 2, to include provision for a new primary school, subject to the conditions as detailed within the submitted report and the completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following:

    a)    the provision of affordable housing on site and/or an off-site contribution in lieu of onsite provision in accordance with the provisions of UDP policy H/7 and its associated SPD: Affordable Housing;

    b)   a financial contribution towards the provision of primary school places in Middleton Township calculated by the pupil yield of the development multiplied by the relevant basic need funding allocation (currently £462,003.75 but the final calculation shall be based on the multipliers in place at the relevant time);

    c)    a financial contribution towards the provision of secondary school places in Middleton Township calculated by the pupil yield of the development (0.1 per dwelling) multiplied by the relevant basic need funding allocation (currently £231,000.15 but the final calculation shall be based on the multipliers in place at the relevant time);

    d)   a financial contribution of £16,930.02 towards cycle lane improvements comprising new and renewed on carriageway cycle lanes along Hollin Lane from its junction with Langley Lane southeast to its junction with Rochdale Road;

    e)    a financial contribution towards the provision of outdoor sport and recreation facilities at Bowlee Playing Fields (currently up to £139,374 but the final calculation shall be based on the Sport England  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Government Planning Reforms: Planning Performance pdf icon PDF 176 KB

    Minutes:

    The Committee received a report from the Director of Economy updating Members on the changes to the planning system which came into force in July 2015 in respect of special measures designations for Local Planning Authorities and on the likely changes to the planning system announced by the government in the most recent Autumn Statement in respect of planning application performance.

     

    The report highlighted the introduction of an increase in the percentage of major applications required to be determined within 13 weeks, unless an extension of time has been agreed with the applicant, from 40% to 50%, with a Local Planning Authority would be designated as being in ‘Special Measures’ where a developer can apply directly to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision on their application, with a processing fee payable to the Planning Inspectorate rather than the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

     

    Members were requested to note the likely intention of the government, as set out in the Autumn Statement, to reduce the percentage of major applications allowed at appeal from 20% to 10%, to avoid a Local Planning Authority being placed into ‘Special Measures’, the likely intention of the government, as set to halve the length of time a Local Planning Authority will have to determine a planning application from twenty six weeks to thirteen weeks, after which time a fee refund should be given if the application has not been determined and no extension of time had been agreed.

     

    DECIDED – That the report be noted.

6.

Calculation of the Council Tax Base for 2016/17 pdf icon PDF 167 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee considered a report of the Director of Resources seeking approval of the statutory council tax base calculation for 2016/17, calculated in accordance with The Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012.  The Committee were also requested to approve the precept payment dates for 2016/17.

     

    The purpose of the report was to fulfil the Council’s requirements under Section 33 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended); to request that the council tax base expressed as “band D equivalent properties”, be approved at £52,114 for 2016/17 (£50,744 2015/16); and, to seek approval of the proposed precepts payment schedule as detailed in paragraph 3.19 of the submitted report.

     

    Alternatives considered: the Council has a statutory requirement to calculate and approve a Council Tax Base each financial year.

     

    DECIDED – That (1) for the purposes of section 33 of the local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended), the council tax base expressed as “band D equivalent properties”, be approved at £52,114 for 2016/17;

    (2) the proposed precepts payment schedule detailed in paragraph 3.19 of the submitted report be approved.

7.

Setting of the Business Rates Base 2016/17 pdf icon PDF 159 KB

    Minutes:

    The Director of Resources introduced a report seeking approval for the setting of the business rates baseline for 2016/17 in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Non-Domestic Rating Regulations 2013.  Members were requested to approve the precept payment dates for 2016/17. Members were requested to approve the draft business rate baseline figure of £63.098m for 2016/17 subject to any changes which may result from the issue of the Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) guidance on completion of the 2016/17 business baseline, due in January 2016; and to approve that the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, be authorised to conclude and agree the final business baseline return (NNDR1) due on the 31st January 2016 should the final information yet to be received from DCLG change the baseline for 2016/17.  The Committee were also requested to approve the precepts payment schedule detailed in paragraph 3.15 of the submitted report.

     

    In January of each year the Authority is required to set an estimated business rates income yield for the following year which is to be used to inform Central Government and Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue.

     

    No alternative were considered as the Council has a statutory requirement to estimate and set a Business Rates Baseline each financial year.

     

    DECIDED – That (1) the business rates baseline for 2016/17 be approved as detailed within the submitted report;

    (2)  the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, be authorised to conclude and agree the final business baseline return (NNDR1) due on the 31st January 2016, should the final information yet to be received from DCLG change the baseline for 2016/17;

    (3) the precepts payment schedule as detailed in paragraph 3.15 of the submitted report, be approved.