Agenda item

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, Nationally Described Space Standards and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.    Detrimental impacts on residential amenity due to lack of internal space within dwellings, lack of adaptable dwellings, lack of spatial distancing between form resulting in overbearing impacts and overshadowing of amenity areas and habitable rooms. The proposals are considered to have detrimental impacts on the residential amenity of future occupants of the development with regards to overbearing impacts, insufficient internal living accommodations and lack of daylight/sunlight to habitable rooms and external amenity spaces as a result of poor spatial distancing between form in combination with the scale, size and orientation of the proposed dwellings. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, HOU12 and HOU13 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.    Detrimental impacts on parking and highways safety due to unsustainable location, poor quality access road to apartments and insufficient on-site parking provision. The development is considered to provide an insufficient level of on-site vehicle parking, poor accessibility to the apartments and is considered to be unsustainably sited with regards to sustainable transport connections, lack of existing walking infrastructure and distances to the closest existing facilities, infrastructure and services. The proposals are considered to be contrary to SD1, SD2, CO1 and Appendix C of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, GEN1 and INF3 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, Code B of the Styal Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.    Insufficient information concerning impacts of the development on the ongoing safe operations of Manchester Aerodrome. There is considered to be insufficient information to ascertain the impacts of the development both during its construction phase and following its completion on the ongoing safe operations of Manchester Airport/Aerodrome. The proposals are considered to be contrary to GEN5 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022.

7.    Detrimental impacts on existing known flood risk and water management issues. The development is considered to result in detrimental impacts on flood risk and water management due to the proposals to erect dwellings, associated infrastructure and SuDS on areas known to have existing high surface water flooding risk. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies and guidance SD1, SD2, SE12 and SE13 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, ENV16 and ENV17 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022, the SuDS SPD and paragraphs 173, 174, 175, 181 and 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.    Insufficient information concerning impacts of the development on a protected species and Biodiversity Net Gain. There is insufficient information to ascertain that mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain can be provided on site in line with the legislation and without detrimentally impacting flood risk or ongoing safe operations of Manchester Airport/Aerodrome. There is insufficient information to ascertain the impacts of the development on protected species concerning bats and great crested newts. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies, guidance and legislation SD1, SD2, SE1 and SE3 of the CELPS, ENV1 and ENV2 of the CELPS, S4 of Page 100 the SND, the Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain SPD Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 if the Environment Act 2021).

9.    Insufficient information concerning losses and importance of existing hedgerows. There is insufficient information to ascertain the importance of the existing hedgerow historically and ecologically and also the extent of loss of hedgerow and the importance of this loss to create the site access. The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies and legislation SD1, SD2, SE1, SE4 and SE5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, ENV6 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 and the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

10.Insufficient on-site provision of public open space, allotments and green infrastructure. The development provides insufficient on-site public open space, allotments and green infrastructure, in terms of siting, size and quality, which cannot be dealt with via developer contributions towards off-site projects due to the distance from the nearest facilities and lack of connectivity from the site to access them. The development is considered to be contrary to policies and guidance SD1, SD2, SC1 and SC3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017, REC3 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 and the Developer Contributions SPD.

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. Should the application be the subject of an appeal, approval is given to enter into a S106 Agreement with the following Heads of Terms: