Agenda item

To consider the above planning application.

It was noted that the address of the location in the title of the reports for application 22/0721M and 22/0722M was incorrect and should be St John the Baptist Church, Church Street, Bollington, Macclesfield.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor Ken Edwards (Ward Member), Councillor Judy Snowball (visiting Member), Mr B Perkins (Objector), and Mr M Simpkin (applicant) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

Councillor Jefferey read out a statement on behalf of Reverend Nancy Goodrich, Vicar of Bollington (supporter).

Councillor Ken Edwards and Councillor J Snowball left the meeting after speaking on this application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the report the application be REFUSED for the following reasons: 

As the development is in contrary to neighbourhood, local and national planning policies and guidance concerning housing mix/type/tenure, affordable housing, residential amenity, loss of Protected Open Space and supporting infrastructure, it is recommended that the application is refused approval for the following reasons:

1. The development does not propose a housing mix of types, sizes or tenures that meets the locally defined needs including that for affordable housing, downsizing and homes for elderly/older persons. The proposals are considered to result in a development that does not create or contribute to providing a mix of homes to create a balanced and sustainable community. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies and guidance: SD1, SC4 and SC5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, HOU1 and HOU8 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, HO.P2 and HO.P3 of the Bollington Neighbourhood Plan, the Housing Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The 11 units do not meet the Nationally described Space Standards and are non-compliant of space standards as required by policy HOU8.

2. The development results in the provision of habitable rooms that would have an insufficient provision of natural daylight, sunlight and level of outlook that is considered to be detrimental to the future occupants’ residential amenity. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies and guidance SD1 and SE2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, GEN1 and HOU12 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, paragraph 129 (2) of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Cheshire East Design Guide.

3. The development results in the unjustified and unmitigated loss of Protected Open Space, a cemetery and graveyard area associated with a historic Church. The proposals are contrary to policies SD1, SD2, SC3 and SE6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 and REC1 and REC3 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022.

4. The development fails to provide adequate financial contributions towards planning obligations for open space, outdoor sport and recreation, allotments, green infrastructure and affordable housing to offset the impact of the development on these needs, infrastructure and services as a result of additional demand placed on them. It is not considered there are material considerations, such as the conclusion of viability Appraisal works that outweigh the conflict with policies and guidance highlighted. It is considered that the proposals do not represent sustainable development when considered as a whole.  It is considered that the development is contrary to policies and guidance MP1, SD1, SD2, IN1, IN2, SC1, SC2, SC4 and SC5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, GEN4, GEN7, REC2, REC3 and HOU1 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, EOS.P2 of the Bollington Neighbourhood Plan, the Developer Contributions SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. Due to the identified harm and policy conflict, it is not considered to be an overriding reason for granting approval of the application and as such the development is considered to fail the first test for habitat regulations and the development would have an adverse impact on protected species and because the benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the impact of the development, the proposals are considered to be contrary to polices SE3 and ENV2 relating to bio diversity.

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 Chair of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.