Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 July 2024 by R Major BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 August 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley WA15 2AB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Paul Shaw against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 110786/FUL/23. • The development proposed is 1no. detached self-build passive eco home. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Since the appeal was submitted, the Council has adopted the Places for Everyone1 Joint Development Plan (PfE Plan) as part of the Development Plan for Trafford. As a result of the adoption of the PfE Plan the appeal site is no longer located within the Green Belt. The Council’s Statement of Case explains the implications of this adopted plan in relation to the first reason for refusal, as well as its relevance to the other reasons for refusal they are pursuing.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Consequently, both parties, within their submissions, have had an opportunity to comment on the PfE Plan, and I have taken into account any comments raised. 3. The decision notice includes a reason for refusal concerning a lack of an appropriate surface water drainage plan. However, on receipt of additional information regarding drainage, the Council have confirmed that the reason for refusal is considered to have been addressed and they are content not to pursue it further. I have proceeded on that basis. 4. Subsequent to the Council issuing its decision the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 19 December 2023 and updated on 20 December 2023. Both parties, within their respective submissions, had an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework. Where reference is made to the Framework in this decision, the paragraph numbers are those that appear in the latest version. 5. On 30 July 2024 the Government published a consultation on “Proposed reforms to the NPPF and other changes to the planning system” and the “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation”. A Written Ministerial Statement entitled “Building the homes we need” was also published on 30 July 2024.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on these publications, and I have taken into account any comments raised. 1 Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan 2022 to 2039, Adopted 21 March 2024. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on these publications, and I have taken into account any comments raised. 1 Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan 2022 to 2039, Adopted 21 March 2024. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 Main Issues 6. The adoption of the PfE Plan has released the appeal site from the Green Belt and the appeal site is now located within the Timperley Wedge PfE Plan Strategic Location (Timperley Wedge). As such the main issues are: • whether the proposed development would accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for housing within the Timperley Wedge, with particular regard to master planning, provision of infrastructure and density; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposed development would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance. Reasons Housing strategy within the Timperley Wedge Master planning and infrastructure 7. The appeal site is located within land designated as the Timperley Wedge within the PfE Plan.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Policy JPA 3.2 of the PfE Plan details that the Timperley Wedge has been allocated to deliver around 2,500 homes of which 1,800 will be within the plan period as set out on the Indicative Allocation Plan (IAP) included within this policy. The appeal site is within land identified for residential development within the IAP. 8. Criterion 1 of PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2 however requires development within the strategic location to be delivered in accordance with an approved masterplan that has been developed in consultation with the local community and other stakeholders. The policy, and its reasoned justification, explains that this approach will ensure the whole allocation is planned and delivered in a coordinated and comprehensive manner with proportionate contributions to fund necessary infrastructure, in order to sustainably deliver a new community at Timperley Wedge. 9. The reasoned justification for PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2 (at para 11.75) also states that all areas of development will be expected to make a proportionate contribution to necessary infrastructure, including transport, social and green infrastructure, with further details set out in the masterplan and delivery strategy. 10.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision At the time of writing this appeal I have not been provided with an approved masterplan for the Timperley Wedge. As such, the appeal proposal would conflict with criterion 1 of Policy JP 3.2 within the PfE Plan which specifically requires development within this allocation to be delivered in accordance with an approved masterplan, in order to deliver a sustainable development, and infrastructure requirements, within the Timperley Wedge. 11. Additionally, the reasoned justification for PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2 (at para 11.83) explains that the existing road network consists of country lanes which are https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision At the time of writing this appeal I have not been provided with an approved masterplan for the Timperley Wedge. As such, the appeal proposal would conflict with criterion 1 of Policy JP 3.2 within the PfE Plan which specifically requires development within this allocation to be delivered in accordance with an approved masterplan, in order to deliver a sustainable development, and infrastructure requirements, within the Timperley Wedge. 11. Additionally, the reasoned justification for PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2 (at para 11.83) explains that the existing road network consists of country lanes which are https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 unable to support the proposed development within this strategic location and a new spine road will provide safe capacity for car use. 12. A potential route for this spine road is shown on the IAP and the reasoned justification for Policy JP 3.2 confirms that the proposed route for this spine road is indicative at this stage, with further work on the most appropriate alignment required as part of future master planning / planning applications. The Council’s submission confirms that work on a detailed site wide masterplan is underway, and a key element of this work is the identification of a route for the spine road. 13. The IAP is indicative and has been provided at a scale that does not identify individual parcels of land, it is therefore not entirely clear where the appeal site is specifically sited on this plan. However, from the landmarks that are discernible on the IAP it would appear that the alignment of the strategic spine road shown on this map runs very close to, if not through the appeal site, and I have not been provided with any evidence to the contrary. 14.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant comments that they have made representations at every stage in respect of the location of the proposed spine road and that they would not be prepared to sell their appeal plot for this purpose. The appellant also states that the Council have previously informed them that Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO’s) would not be used. Whilst these points are acknowledged, I have very limited evidence before me that the Council would not potentially pursue CPO’s in respect of acquiring land for the proposed spine road. 15. The appellant also explains that alternative routes for the spine road have been tested and the appeal site was not the most desirable for several reasons, with an alternative route to the south of the appeal site to be used for the spine road. In support of these comments, as part of their response to the request for comments on the “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation” document, the appellant has provided an extract of a proposed masterplan which shows the alignment of the proposed spine road to the south of the appeal site. 16. This masterplan provided by the appellant is however currently out for consultation and is therefore not an adopted masterplan.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision As such, this draft masterplan, including the alignment of the spine road, could be subject to further change in the future. Consequently, the weight that can be given to this masterplan is limited at this stage. 17. In view of the above, there is a risk that the appeal proposal could potentially conflict with the route of the strategic spine road as shown on the IAP. I acknowledge however that the IAP is an indicative plan only and the masterplan provided by the appellant, which is now out for consultation, shows the appeal site may be unaffected by the proposed spine road. Nevertheless, the exact location and alignment of the spine road is still unknown at this stage and will be confirmed as part of the approved masterplan once published. 18. As such, at the present time there remains uncertainty in respect of the exact location of the spine road and how it could relate to the appeal site. This level of uncertainty only adds to my earlier view that the development of the appeal site should be delivered in accordance with an approved masterplan, as required by criterion 1 of PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 Density 19. Criterion 4 of PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2 requires residential developments in the northern part of the allocation area to achieve an average density of 35 dwellings per hectare (dph). Neither party has disputed that the appeal site falls within the northern part of the allocation area. 20. The reasoned justification (at para 11.77) of Policy JP 3.2 states that the northern areas of the allocation site will deliver medium density housing in keeping with the existing character of the area, and that lower density is not considered to be appropriate as this would not be an efficient use of land. 21. The Council asserts that this single dwelling, on a large plot, would equate to a density of 14 dph and this has not been contested by the appellant. The proposed density of 14 dph would therefore not be compliant with criterion 4 of PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2. 22. The appeal site is however located at the northern extent of the allocation, close to existing dwellings.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision I observed on site that the immediate surroundings are predominantly characterised by detached dwellings, with the dwellings directly to the north on Clay Lane, and the properties on the opposite side of Thorley Lane, fronting onto Wood Lane, located within significantly sized plots. 23. Whilst I have not been provided with any figures of the surrounding housing density by either party, based on my observations on site the plot sizes of the closest dwellings on Clay Lane and Wood Lane would be similar in size to the appeal site plot. 24. Furthermore, the appeal site itself is relatively long and narrow in shape, with the northern section tapering significantly towards Clay Lane. As such, a significant section of the appeal plot would not be suitable for the siting of additional units. 25. I note the Council’s comments that the approved masterplan would ensure that land allocated for residential development is used in the most efficient manner, and piecemeal development significantly below the policy requirements for housing density would result in harm to this strategic land allocation. 26.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, in this particular case, the appeal relates to a proposal for a single dwelling on a site that is of a shape that I judge would be difficult to provide a greater density than that proposed. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the Council’s concerns on this matter, I see no reason why any future development of land beyond the appeal site, and across the strategic land allocation as a whole, could not provide the density required by PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2. 27. In addition, and as detailed above, given the appeal proposal would have a similar density to that found within neighbouring plots, it would broadly adhere to the reasoned justification of Policy JP 3.2 where it states that the northern areas of the allocation site will deliver medium density housing in keeping with the existing character of the area. 28. As such, whilst the appeal proposal would not be compliant with criterion 4 of PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2 in respect of housing density figures, in this particular case there are material considerations which outweigh this conflict. These material considerations include the shape of the appeal site, which means that https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 the required housing density is unlikely to be achieved on this plot, and its siting adjacent to existing dwellings with a similar density to that proposed. Summary 29. In view of all the above, whilst the appeal proposal would not provide the policy required housing density, in this particular case, and for the reasons given above, there are material considerations which outweigh this conflict. However, the appeal proposal would not accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for housing in the Timperley Wedge in respect of master planning and provision of infrastructure. The proposal therefore conflicts with criterion 1 of PfE Plan Policy JP 3.2 which requires development within the Timperley Wedge to be delivered in accordance with an approved masterplan in order to deliver a sustainable development and infrastructure requirements. Character and appearance 30. The appeal relates to a plot of land situated directly to the east of Thorley Lane (A5144). Immediately to the south of the appeal site is an access track leading off Thorley Lane and this serves the appeal site and a number of commercial uses to the south and east.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision To the north is the roundabout junction at Thorley Lane, Clay Lane and Wood Lane, with the settlement of Timperley beyond. 31. Immediately to the north the area is predominantly characterised by detached dwellings situated within sizable plot. The nearest dwellings on Clay Lane and Wood Lane generally benefit from a significant setback from the highway and sufficient space to at least one side boundary, and this helps to preserve the spacious and suburban character of the surrounding area. 32. The majority of dwellings within the vicinity of the appeal site have front garden areas, and those that don’t tend to have wide frontages with some form of soft landscaping, trees or hedging to the front. These front gardens, trees and boundary treatments create a pleasant, green and leafy character to this area, representing its location on the edge of the settlement and close to an area that was, until recently, designated as Green Belt. 33. The appeal site is relatively long and narrow in shape, tapering to its most northern point adjacent to Clay Lane. The proposed dwelling measuring approx. 10m wide would cover a very significant proportion of the width of this plot. According to the Council’s submission a gap of approx.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision 1.5m would be provided between the side of the proposed dwelling and the western boundary, with a minimum gap of 0.8m provided to the eastern boundary. 34. The narrow nature of the appeal site, along with the significant width, height and overall massing of the proposed dwelling, results in the dwelling appearing as though it sits in a significantly more confined plot than is typical of the surrounding area, with limited space provided to the sides. This would be out of keeping with the spacious surroundings I observed at other similar sized detached dwellings within the vicinity of the appeal site. 35. While I accept that not all plot sizes and garden areas need to be identical, when experienced alongside the neighbouring plots the proposal would appear as a cramped and contrived form of development. It would read as squeezed into the site and would fail to respect the prevailing surrounding pattern of built form in this leafy suburban area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 36. Furthermore, the dwelling would also be situated towards the southern end of the site, close to the access track off Thorley Lane. Whilst the siting of the dwelling provides a long garden to the rear, limited space would be provided to the front of the dwelling and what space would be provided would be taken up by the three proposed car parking spaces, with minimal room for any front garden or areas of soft landscaping. This shortened area to the front of the dwelling would also be out of keeping with the setbacks found on other properties within the vicinity, and only exacerbates the cramped appearance of the appeal proposal within this plot. 37. In view of the above, the proposed dwelling would appear as confined within the site and would result in an incongruous addition, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. 38. In terms of design and appearance, the proposed property would have a Georgian design and a hipped mansard roof, with a flat roof on top.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The overall Georgian design of the proposed dwelling, alongside the proposed roof style, would be at odds with the surrounding house designs in this locality, which generally date from a more recent architectural design period. Furthermore, the side elevations of the proposed dwelling would include few design features and therefore fail to break up the large expanse of brickwork along these long elevations. 39. I note the appellant’s view that mansard roofs are encouraged within the “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation” at revised paragraph 122 (e). However, this paragraph relates to the upward extension of existing premises to create new homes and is therefore not specifically relevant to this appeal scheme for a new build detached dwelling. 40. Nevertheless, this paragraph continues by stating that such extensions should be allowed where they would be consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and the overall street-scene. As outlined above, I have found that the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling, including its roof, would not be in-keeping with surrounding properties. 41.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision In coming to the above views on the design and appearance of the appeal proposal, I note that the side boundaries are well vegetated and if retained these would partially enclose and screen the proposed dwelling from existing public vantage points. However, there is no guarantee that this vegetation would be retained in perpetuity. Furthermore, given the wider developments that would inevitably take place within this strategic location, views towards of the appeal site will undoubtably change and it may become more visually prominent in the future. 42. The appellant contends that there are many examples of similar designed properties across the locality. However, I have not been provided with the full details of these properties, or addresses, in order to draw any comparison with the appeal scheme, the appeal site and its surroundings. 43. I am also aware that self-build properties, by their nature, offer a diverse range of dwelling types and sizes. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above I find that the appeal proposal, as a result of its scale, layout, siting and design on this narrow plot, would have a harmful visual impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision To support their case the appellant has provided images of a contemporary designed dwelling that has been constructed elsewhere within the borough. However, again I have very limited https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision To support their case the appellant has provided images of a contemporary designed dwelling that has been constructed elsewhere within the borough. However, again I have very limited https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 information before me in respect of this development and its surrounding context in order to make any direct comparisons to the appeal scheme. 44. In view of all the above, the appeal scheme, by reason of its scale, layout, siting and design, would have a harmful visual impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the objectives of PfE Plan Policy JP-P1 which requires, amongst other things, that development respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size and scale, and that proposals enable a clear understanding of how the place has developed. 45. The appeal scheme would also fail to comply with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance - Planning Guidelines New Residential Development (2004) (SPG) where it states that development should complement the characteristics of the surrounding area. As well as the requirements of the National Design Guide where it states that development should understand and relate well to the site, its local and wider context. 46.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout; are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment; and maintain a strong sense of place. 47. I note the reason for refusal relating to character and appearance refers to Policy L7 of the Trafford Local Plan: Core Strategy (2012) (CS). However, the Council’s submission confirms that this policy was partially replaced by PfE Plan Policy JP-P1, except for issues relating to residential amenity. On this basis, CS Policy L7 is no longer considered to be relevant in respect of matters relating to character and appearance. Living conditions of future occupiers 48. There are a number of commercial premises to the south of the appeal site which utilise the access track that would serve the proposed development. I observed that the commercial premises closest to the appeal site did not appear to be actively operational at the specific time of my site visit, albeit I appreciate my site visit represents a short snapshot in time. 49. Whilst on site I did hear some commercial noise from what appeared to be land further to the south.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, this was for a relatively short period of time, and it was unclear exactly which site this noise emanated from. During my site visit I could however clearly hear noise from traffic using the adjacent highway of Thorley Lane, particularly the revving of engines by some vehicles as they moved away from the roundabout junction directly to the north. 50. Given my observations on site, the residential use of the appeal site would be subject to some external noise, potentially from nearby commercial uses, but certainly from the highway of Thorley Lane and this would likely increase as the wider strategic location is developed in the future. I therefore consider that a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) is required in order to understand the potential impacts of these nearby sources of noise on the appeal site, including any mitigation measures that may need to be incorporated into the design of the dwelling. I am not convinced that this matter could be dealt with via a planning condition, as the potential mitigation measures required could fundamentally alter the appeal proposal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 51. In coming to the above view, I note the comments that the land immediately to the south is owned by the appellant and upon completion of the current occupant(s) tenancy it is envisaged that the plot would be integrated back into the plot subject to the appeal. The appellant has also commented that these other commercial units are earmarked for residential use within the strategic location and therefore the longevity of these commercial uses is limited. 52. I have very limited information before me in respect of the length of the tenancy of the site immediately to the south of the appeal site, or details of how long the other nearby commercial uses will remain on site. Furthermore, there is no means before me to ensure that the nearby commercial uses would not continue to operate in the future. Nonetheless, the future of the nearby commercial uses does not address the noise that I observed on site arising from the adjacent highway. 53. I also note the appellant comments that they will reside in this property and are aware of the potential noise issues.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, there is no mechanism before me to secure that the proposed dwelling could only be occupied by the appellant, and in any case their future living conditions must still be protected. 54. My attention has also been drawn to the high-quality insulation and construction methods associated with passive houses. Whilst I have no reason to doubt this claim, in the absence of a NIA I have no detailed evidence to demonstrate the existing background noise levels, or that acceptable living conditions could be provided for future occupiers within the dwelling or outdoor amenity areas. 55. I therefore conclude that insufficient information has been submitted to establish that the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would not be adversely impacted by noise and disturbance from nearby existing noise sources. The proposal would therefore fail to adhere to CS Policy L7.3 where it requires development to be compatible with the area and not prejudice the amenity of the future occupiers of the development by reason of noise and/or disturbance. 56. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for future users.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Living conditions of nearby occupiers 57. The Council contend that noise from plant equipment associated with the proposed passive eco house could have a harmful impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents and a NIA has not been provided to demonstrate that that the proposal would comply with BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 “Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound”. 58. The appellant’s submission details that the only source of noise from equipment associated with the proposed dwelling would be from the ground source heat pump and the noise emitted from this pump varies depending on make and model. In this case the appellant states that the ground source heat pump model earmarked for this development has a noise level of 42dB. 59. The appellant has also drawn my attention to the pump element being deliberately sited on the Thorley Lane side of the dwelling, thus closest to this busy road, and as mentioned above I observed on site that background noise https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 from this highway was clearly audible on the appeal site. Furthermore, being located on that side of the property it would be a considerable distance away from the nearest neighbouring dwellings, and the building itself would provide some screening of noise emitted from the pump. 60. As such, and given the evidence before me, I find that in this case a suitably worded condition could be attached restricting the levels of noise from any plant equipment associated with the proposed dwelling when measured from the nearest neighbouring noise sensitive premises, should I be minded to allow this appeal. 61. In view of the above, and subject to the aforementioned condition, the proposal would not have an undue affect upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance. The proposal therefore accords with CS Policy L7.3 where it requires development to be compatible with the area and not prejudice the amenity of the occupants of adjacent properties by reason of noise and/or disturbance. I also find no conflict with the Council’s SPG where it says that development will not be accepted at the expense of the amenity of the surrounding properties. 62.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Additionally, I find no conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users. Other Matters 63. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments on the important contribution small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement in an area as detailed within the Framework. However, this should not be at the potential risk of impacting larger-scale residential developments within this allocated site for the reasons I have detailed earlier. 64. I also note the appellant’s view that given the various landowners involved it may be years before any houses come forward on this allocated site and once the level of required contributions for infrastructure is known developments might not come forward. Given the PfE Plan has only recently been adopted and work is clearly on going on the masterplan, including the levels of contributions that would be required, these are somewhat speculative assertions.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, in my judgement the need for stakeholder / landowner engagement, and clarity on the contributions required for infrastructure, only emphasises the importance of all development within this strategic location coming forward in accordance with an approved masterplan. 65. The appellant has drawn my attention to an allowed appeal decision2 for outline planning permission for up to 116no. residential dwellings on land to the southwest of the appeal site. However, I note this appeal was determined before the PfE was adopted and there is no submission on its specific relevance to this case or indeed its relevance to any matter to the case as made by the appellant. This limits any parallels to be drawn and the weight I can give this appeal decision. 2 APP/Q4245/W/22/3306715 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 Other considerations 66. The Council confirms that the Housing Delivery Test results show Trafford delivered 65% of its housing requirement over the three years to March 2023, and this figure is therefore below the 75% requirement. 67. Set against the harms identified, the appellant has commented that the proposal would release an affordable house into the market when they occupy the proposed dwelling. I have limited information before me in respect of the dwelling the appellant currently occupies. Nevertheless, the provision of one new residential unit arising from this proposal would make a contribution to addressing the shortfall in housing delivery in the borough. 68. This accords with the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing, which is further emphasised within the recently published “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation” and the Written Ministerial Statement entitled “Building the homes we need”. However, given the scale of the development, I attach limited positive weight to the provision of one new dwelling. 69.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision There would be economic benefits arising from the construction activities to provide the dwelling and from residents using local shops and services. However, such benefits would be limited by the scale of the proposed development and therefore attract limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme. Furthermore, the proposal would increase the overall biodiversity of the site. Again however, given the scale of biodiversity enhancement that would likely be created, I attribute this matter limited weight in favour of the appeal. 70. The appellant states that the proposed dwelling would be a self-build property and I acknowledge paragraph 70(b) of the Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. Criterion 6 of PfE Policy 3.2 also states that developments will be required to make appropriate provision for self- build custom build plots, subject to local demand as set out in the Council’s self- build register. 71. The parties have not however provided details on the level of need for self- build plots within Trafford, as per the self-build register, or details of how many self-build plots have been granted consent.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision I am therefore unaware as to whether there is currently any shortfall in self-build plots within the borough. Moreover, I have no legal agreement, undertaking or other mechanism suggested to secure this dwelling as a self-build plot under the legislative requirements of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). 72. Consequently, in the absence of any information in respect of self-build plots within the borough and a mechanism to secure this provision, I give the self- build consideration very limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal. 73. The submission states that the proposed dwelling would be a passive eco home, utilising renewable energy sources including grey water recycling, solar panels and an air source heat pump. Whilst no energy statement has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would be zero carbon, the above measures would still contribute towards carbon saving and reduced use of carbon resources. The use of these renewable energy sources carries moderate weight in favour of the appeal scheme and should I be minded to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 allow the appeal, the provision of these renewable energy sources could be secured by planning condition. Planning Balance 74. The appeal proposal would not accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for housing in the Timperley Wedge in respect of master planning and provision of infrastructure and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future residents. Collectively, I judge the magnitude of harm from these matters to be substantial. 75. The CS dates from 2012 and the PfE Plan from 2024, however the weight to be attached does not hinge on their age. Paragraph 225 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. 76.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision According to the Framework the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities. In doing so the Framework advocates the use of appropriate tools such as masterplans and design guides to secure well-designed and beautiful homes. 77. The Framework also states that the creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve, and seeks to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout; are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment; and maintain a strong sense of place. The Framework also requires that a high standard of amenity be provided for future users. 78. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and CS Policy L7.3, and PfE Plan Policies JP-P1 and Policy JP 3.2 should be given significant weight in this appeal as these policies are consistent with the Framework.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision As the proposal would be contrary to these policies there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole. 79. As detailed above the Council’s Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years and in these circumstances footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the appeal are deemed out-of-date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 80. The adverse impacts of the proposal’s failure to accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for housing in the Timperley Wedge in respect of master planning and provision of infrastructure; the harm to the character and appearance of the area; and the failure to demonstrate that the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future residents would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/24/3336651 Conclusion 81. In view of the above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.

Land to the east of Thorley Lane, Timperley, Cheshire, WA15 2AB — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — R Major INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12