Six self-contained apartments at 169 Hall Street, Offerton, Stockport

“PROPOSAL: Conversion and extension of existing dwellinghouse to create 6 no. self contained apartments on each level (including basement) including a part two, part three-storey rear extension and external works include a rear car park, landscaping, bin and bike storage, and external lightwells…”

“Planning permission is sought for the conversion and extension of this existing residential dwellinghouse building into 6 no. self contained residential apartments, with associated access, car parking, cycle parking, landscaping, boundary treatments and other associated infrastructure. It is proposed to provide 3 no. one bedroom apartments and 3 no. two bedroom apartments.”

“The application site comprises a double fronted period two storey property with accommodation over three floors. The property was constructed in the early to mid- 19 th century, apparent on the 1849 tithe map. The property is of traditional design and construction with a pitched slate roof and is constructed in rendered brick, and wedge-shaped stone lintels and stone sills. There is a small array of solar panels on the front roof pitch facing Hall Street.”

“The application site is located within an existing residential area, which is allocated as a Predominantly Residential Area within the UDP. The site is bounded on all adjoining sides by existing residential properties of varying sizes and designs. On the opposite side of Hall Street is the Co-op supermarket. The site is not located within a designated conservation area, nor is the existing property a designated listed building or a locally listed building.”

“The location of the site is within a Predominantly Residential Area and as referred to at the start of this analysis, the fact that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing means that elements of Core Strategy policies CS4 and H2 are considered to be out of date. As such the tilted balance in favour of the residential redevelopment of the site as set out in para 11 of the NPPF is engaged.”

“It is considered that the siting, scale and design of the proposed development could be successfully accommodated on the site without causing undue harm to the visual amenity of the area, the residential amenity of surrounding properties or to the character and appearance of this non-designated heritage asset.”

“It can be confirmed that these amendments address the previous concerns and, as such, raise no objection to the application, subject to conditions (construction management statement, upgrade existing access, car parking, cycle parking, electric vehicle charging point).”

“No objections to the amended proposals subjection to the inclusion of conditions relating to materials, windows and doors, external plant, boundary treatments.”

“The Planning Officer introduced the application, and Members questioned the Planning Officer about viability matters. The planning officer provided advice on the viability assessment process, which is embedded in national planning policy. Questions were also raised in relation to construction and could a construction management plan condition be imposed in this case. The officer confirmed this could be included if Members wished.”

“Members talked further about construction and a bespoke condition that requires the submission of information specifically in relation to deliveries and traffic management. Don’t want to impose a condition that is too onerous based on the small scale of the development. This was agreed with the Planning officer. No further comments were made.”

“Members unanimously resolved to refer the application to the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee with a recommendation for approval, subject to the condition in relation to traffic management being included.”

“RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the imposition of conditions.”