Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ken Edwards.

Councillor Brian Puddicombe attended the meeting as substitute.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, other registerable interests, and non-registerable interests in any item on the agenda and for Members to declare if they have a pre-determination in respect of any item on the agenda.

In the interest of openness, the following declarations were made;

In relation to application 26/0453/FUL, Councillor Craig Browne declared that he knew the applicant, however had not discussed the application with them.

In relation to application 24/5182/FUL, Councillor Craig Browne declared that he would step down from the committee and speak against the application and leave the room during the debate and vote.

In relation to application 24/5182/FUL, Councillor David Edwardes declared that he had previously been a member of the Cricket Club.

On behalf of all Committee Members, the Chair declared that all Members had received correspondence directly from the agent in relation to application 25/1985/FUL.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 April 2026 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd April 2026 be approved as a correct record.

A total period of 5 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the following:

·         Ward Councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee

·         The relevant Town/Parish Council

A period of 3 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the following individuals/groups:

• Members who are not members of the planning committee and are not the Ward Member
• Objectors
• Supporters
• Applicants

RESOLVED:

 That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meetings and spoken in relation to the application;

Andrew Jalali (Agent)

Members noted the content of the update report.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the report the application be APPROVED subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement as detailed below;

Conditions  

1. Commencement of development (3 years)

2. Development in accord with approved plans

3. Details of external materials to be submitted

4. Sample Panel of external materials on site

5. Provision of Car Parking Spaces (pre-occupation)

6. Provision of Bin and Bicycle Storage (pre-occupation)

7. Submission of a Travel Plan (pre-occupation)

8. Submission of Boundary Treatment and Landscaping Scheme (pre-occupation)

9. Landscaping (implementation and protection)

10. Submission/approval of levels

11. Tree protection and construction (pre-commencement)

12. Service/Drainage Layout (tree protection) (pre-commencement)

13. Submission of a noise assessment and mitigation measures for Air Source Heat Pumps (pre-installation)

14. Implementation of noise impact assessment and mitigation measures (pre-occupation)

15. Submission of a Dust Management plan (pre-commencement)

16. A Phase II ground investigation and risk assessment (pre-commencement, except for demolition and site clearance)

17. Decontamination of Land (pre-occupation)

18. Imported Soil (on going)

19. Unexpected Contamination (if found)

20. Detailed foul and surface water scheme (pre-commencement, except for demolition and site clearance)

21. Scheme to protect railways (Network Rail) (pre-commencement)

22. External Lighting Scheme (Pre-occupation)

23. BNG

24. Bird Nesting Season

25. Breeding Birds (improvement measures).

26. No development shall take place until a method statement and risk assessment regarding the safety and integrity of the adjacent railway has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement and risk assessment should include details of:

• Appropriate vehicle safety protection measures along the site boundary with the railway;

• Any scaffolding works within 10m of the railway boundary;

• Any earthworks and excavations to be carried out within 10m of the railway boundary;

• A suitable trespass proof fence adjacent to the boundary with the railway; and • The disposal of surface water and foul water drainage from the proposed development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the adjacent railway and its boundary.

Section 106 Agreement to secure;

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions /  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended and spoke in relation to the application;

Sarah Boslover (Agent)

Members noted the content of the update report.

A motion was put to the committee to defer the application. This motion was lost.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED as detailed in the Officer recommendation for the following reasons;

1.    Inappropriate development within the Green Belt: The proposals represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The development fail to meet the exceptional development criteria for grey belt land as the proposals include development on land that would result in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, is in an unsustainable location and does not provide on-site green space with existing nearby green space too far away to seek improvement. The development does not meet the criterion for limited infilling in a village within the Green Belt, as the site lies far beyond the defined infill village settlement boundaries for Styal. The development does not meet the criterion for complete redevelopment of previously developed land. There are no very special circumstances or material considerations that outweigh the defined harm. The proposals therefore represent unsustainable development. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies SD1, SD2 and PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 and paragraphs 110, 115, 154(e), 154 (g) 155 (a), (c) and (d), 156 (c) and 159 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    Inappropriate mix, tenure, size and type of housing. The development would fail to present a mixture of housing in terms of type, size and tenure that would support and encourage the creation of a sustainable and mixed community. The development would fail to provide housing that meets the minimum internal size requirements as set within the Nationally Described Space Standards and would provide insufficient internal living space for future occupants and to allow for different life stages. The proposals are considered to be contrary to SD1, SC4 and SC5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 and HOU1 and HOU8 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, the Nationally Described Space Standards, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Housing SPD.

3.    Design, scale, siting and layout out of keeping with immediate area: The proposals fail to provide a development that reflects the architectural character, density, layout, plot sizes and scale within the immediate rural area, which as a result is considered to appear overdeveloped, overly urban and visually prominent as such detrimental to the character of its rural setting. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies and guidance: SD1, SD2 and SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, GEN1 and HOU8 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, S1 and the Design Code of the Styal Neighbourhood Development Plan, Cheshire East Design Guide SPD, Housing SPD, Nationally Described Space Standards and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.    Detrimental impacts on built heritage: The proposals result in less than substantial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended and spoke in relation to the application;

Ivor Smits (Agent)

Members noted the content of the update report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED as detailed in the Officer recommendation for the following reasons;

1.    Inappropriate development within the Green Belt: The proposals represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The development failed to meet the exceptional development criteria for grey belt land as the proposals include development on land with existing/future high surface water flood risk and in an unsustainable location. The development does not meet the criterion for limited infilling in a village within the Green Belt, as the site lies far beyond the defined infill village settlement boundaries for Styal. There are no very special circumstances or material considerations that outweigh the defined harm. The proposals therefore represent unsustainable development. The proposals are considered to be contrary to PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 and paragraphs 155 (a), (c) and (d), 156 (c) and 159 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    Inappropriate mix, tenure, size and type of housing. The development would fail to present a mixture of housing in terms of type, size and tenure that would support and encourage the creation of a sustainable and mixed community when considering both market and affordable dwellings proposed. The development would fail to provide a range of housing that meets the identified needs for both market and affordable housing tenure. The development would fail to provide housing that meets the minimum internal size requirements as set within the Nationally Described Space Standards and would provide insufficient internal living space for future occupants and to allow for different life stages. The development fails to provide a range of housing to allow for adaptability of dwellings for all life stages with regards to M4(2) or M4(3) Category 2 of Building Regulations standards. The proposals are considered to be contrary to SD1, SC4 and SC5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 and HOU1 and HOU8 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, the Nationally Described Space Standards, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Housing SPD.

3.    Design, scale, siting and layout out of keeping with immediate area, lack of pepper-potting affordable units. The proposals fail to provide a development that reflects the architectural character, density, layout, plot sizes and scale within the immediate rural area, which as a result is considered to appear overdeveloped, overly urban and visually prominent as such detrimental to the character of its setting. The proposals fail to pepper-pot affordable units with market units and therefore the development does not read as tenure blind. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies and guidance: SD1, SD2 and SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, GEN1 and HOU8 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, S1 and the Design Code of the Styal Neighbourhood Development Plan, Cheshire East Design Guide SPD, Housing SPD,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended and spoke in relation to the application;

Councillor Craig Browne (Ward Councillor) 

Councillor Vince Fogerty (Parish Councillor)  

Samantha Scott (Objector) 

Chris Senton (Agent)

Members noted the content of the update report.

A motion was put to the committee to refuse the application. This motion was lost.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the report, the application be APPROVED subject to conditions as detailed below;

1.    3-year Time Limit

2.    Development in accord with approved plans

3.    Materials to be submitted

4.    Bird nesting season avoidance

5.    Biodiversity enhancement scheme to be submitted

6.    BNG condition

7.    Landscaping scheme to be submitted including boundary treatments

8.    Landscaping details and maintenance to be submitted

9.    Drainage scheme to be implemented

10.Reporting of unexpected contamination

11.Details of lighting to be submitted

12.Noise impact assessment to be implemented

13.Hours of operation (08.00 – 20.00 Mon – Fri, Sun 09.00 – 18.00)

14.Post-Completion Noise Validation

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Planning has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Board, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended and spoke in relation to the application;

Councillor David Jefferey (Ward Councillor) 

Councillor Tim Higgins (Parish/Town Councillor)  

Roger Bagguley (Objector) 

Louise Whinnett (Agent)

Members noted the content of the update report.

A motion was put to the committee to refuse the application. This motion was lost.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the report the application be APPROVED subject to conditions as detailed below;

1.    3-year Time Limit

2.    Development in accord with approved plans

3.    Material samples to be submitted

4.    Construction Management Plan (highways) to be submitted

5.    Method statement required for construction of car park (trees)

6.    Submission of existing and proposed levels

7.    Bird nesting season avoidance Biodiversity enhancement scheme to be submitted

8.    BNG

9.    Landscaping scheme to be submitted

10.Landscaping details and maintenance to be submitted

11.Boundary treatment plan to be submitted

12.Drainage scheme to be submitted prior to commencement

13. Contamination risk assessments to be submitted

14.Verification and remediation (contamination) to be submitted

15.Testing of soil to be imported

16.Reporting of unexpected contamination

17.Obscure glazing

18.Development to be carried out in accordance with submitted arboricultural statement

19.Engineer designed construction Specification / Method Statement to be submitted (trees)

20.Landscape management plan to be submitted

21.Landscape maintenance plan for the communal gardens.

22.Hedgehog avoidance method statement to be submitted

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Planning has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.