PDF 75 KBVenue: The Capesthorne Room - Town Hall, Macclesfield, SK10 1EA. View directions
Contact: Sarah Baxter Democratic Services Officer
Note: To register to speak on an application please email Speakingatplanning@cheshireeast.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies for absence were from Councillors Mrs Rachel Bailey, P Hoyland, G Walton and S Wilkinson. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest/Pre Determination To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests and for Members to declare if they have a pre-determination in respect of any item on the agenda. Minutes: In the interest of openness in respect of application, Councillor H Davenport declared that he was a Member of the Cheshire East Council Environment and Prosperity Scrutiny Committee that some 2/3 years ago originally looked at and considered the Tatton Park initial Bewilderwood proposals. However he stated that he had not pre determined the application and had come to the meeting with an open mind to consider it afresh.
It was also noted that all Members of the Board were Cheshire East Councillors and that as Cheshire East Council was a landowner the Council had an interest in the application by virtue of the fact that the Authority and Tatton Park would receive future financial contributions from the scheme should the application be approved.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor J Hammond declared that he was a member of the RSPB, the Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the National Trust who had been consultees on the application, however her had not made any comments in relation to the application.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor Miss C Andrew declared that she was a member of the National Trust who had been a consultee on the application, however she had not made any comments in relation to the application.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillors Mrs H Gaddum and P Mason declared that they had both been Cabinet Members when the proposals had been considered in principle, however they had not pre determined the application and had come to the meeting with an open mind.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor Mrs Rhoda Bailey declared that she was a member of the National Trust and CPRE who had been consultees on the application, however she had not made any comments in relation to the application.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor Mrs L Smetham declared that she was a member of the RSPB, the National Trust who had been consultees on the application as well as being a member of the Royal Horticultural Society, however she had not made any comments in relation to the application.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor D Hough declared that he was a member of the National Trust and RSPB who had been a consultee on the application, however he had not made any comments in relation to the application.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor D Brown declared that he was a member of the Cabinet which had considered the proposals in principle. In addition he was also a member of the National Trust who had been a consultee on the application, however he had not made any comments in relation to the application.
In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor C Thorley declared that he was a ... view the full minutes text for item 172. |
|
|
Minutes of the Meeting To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2014 as a correct record. Minutes: RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting held 5 February 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
Public Speaking A total period of 5 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the Ward Councillors who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board.
A period of 3 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the following individual/groups:
Minutes: RESOLVED
That the public speaking procedure be noted. |
|
|
To consider the above application.
Minutes: Consideration was given to the above application.
(Councillor J Macrae, the Ward Councillor, Councillor L Gilbert, a visiting Councillor, Councillor Mrs O Hunter, the neighbouring Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Michael Houghton, representing Knutsford Town Council, Steve Torkington representing Save Tatton Action Group, Mr Reeves, an objector, Susan Appleton, a supporter, Phillippa Meachin, a supporter and Tom Blofeld, the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).
RESOLVED
That for the reasons set out in the report and in the written and oral update to Board the application be approved subject to:-
(1) An Agreement under s111 Local Government Act 1972 and s1 Localism Act 2011 securing (by way of a further Agreement under s106 Town & Country Planning Agreement 1990):-
(a) £800,000 comprising £160,000 to be paid upon the Development first being brought into use and £160,000 on the anniversary of that date for the following four years, to be spent by the Council on works identified in the Conservation Action Plan at Appendix 1 of “The Bewilderwood Scheme – Public Benefits vs Harm” statement submitted with the planning application. The programme of works may be amended from time to time with the consent of the Interim Planning & Place Shaping Manager but shall always accord with the latest QuinQuennial Review of the Heritage Asset and shall not be spent within the Bewilderwood site.
(b) A Performance Bond on terms approved by the Council and given by a reputable financial institution approved by the Council, which guarantees performance of site restoration works required by condition, upon the Development ceasing to operate.
(c) Further sums which will vary according to the income generated by the scheme and which shall be calculated according to the methodology used to produce the 5 – 20 Year Potential Financial Profile at Appendix 2 of “The Bewilderwood Scheme – Public Benefits vs Harm” statement submitted with the planning application. Agreeing the detail of the methodology is delegated to the Interim Planning & Place Shaping Manager and the Chief Operating Officer, who will take into account the Applicants` full business plan for the Development and may discount sums already secured for the benefit of the Heritage Asset by other means such as lease or licence of the site. Such further sums are to be spent by the Council on works identified in a Conservation Management Plan for the Heritage Asset based on the draft Conservation Management Plan at Appendix 3 of “The Bewilderwood Scheme – Public Benefits vs Harm” statement submitted with the planning application. The programme of works may be amended from time to time with the consent of the Interim Planning & Place Shaping Manager but shall always accord with the latest QuinQuennial Review of the Heritage Asset and shall not be spent within the Bewilderwood site. And subject to the following conditions:-
1. Standard time 3 years 2. Development to proceed in accordance with the approved plans 3. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance ... view the full minutes text for item 175. |
|
|
To consider the above application. Minutes: Consideration was given to the above application.
RESOLVED
That for the reasons set out in the report the application be approved subject to the following conditions;-
1. A03FP - Commencement of development (3 years) 2. A01AP - Development in accord with approved plans 3. A22GR - Protection from noise during construction (hours of construction) 4. A17MC - Decontamination of land 5. A02TR - Tree protection 6. A05LS - Landscaping - implementation 7. A15MC - Archaeological watching brief 8. Unidentified Contamination 9. Detailed scheme of footpath facilities together with a programme of implementation 10. Submission of 10 year habitat management plan 11. Detailing planting specification for proposed woodland copses and new hedgerows 12. Submission of Construction Management Plan |
|
|
To consider the above application. Minutes: This item was withdrawn by Officers from the agenda prior to the meeting. |
|
|
To consider the above application. Minutes: Consideration was given to the above application.
RESOLVED
That for the reasons outlined in the report and in the written update to Board the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-
1. Approved Plans 2. Obscure glazing to the side elevations of plots 1, 18, 19, 32, 33, 103, 115, 147 and 157 and removal of PD Rights for all new windows to the side elevations 3. Removal of PD Rights for extensions to plots 47, 147-157 4. Materials to submitted and approved in writing by the LPA 5. Notwithstanding any indication on the approved plans, no development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters for the entire site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 6. Landscaping details to be submitted to the LPA for approval in writing 7. Boundary treatment as shown on the approved plan 8. Submission of a landscaping scheme 9. Implementation of the approved landscape scheme 10.Submission and implementation of a habitat management plan 11.Arboricultural method statement to include, tree protection, special construction for hard surfaces within tree root protection area, 12.A programme of work to retained trees. 13.Details of service routes would also be appropriate. 14.Refuse storage facilities to be approved 15.Raft Foundations 16.Drainage
In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Board’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 Interim Planning and Place Shaping Manager 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 Board’s decision. |
|
|
To consider the above application. Minutes: Consideration was given to the above application.
(Councillor S Gardiner, the Ward Councillor, Councillor J Macrae, the Neighbouring Ward Councillor, Brian Chaplin, representing South Knutsford Residents Group and Mr Suckley, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).
RESOLVED
That for the reasons set out in the report and in the oral update to Board the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing the following Heads of Terms:-
And subject to the following conditions:-
1. A06OP - Commencement of development 2. A03OP - Time limit for submission of reserved matters (within 3 years) 3. A01OP - Submission of reserved matters 4. A02OP_1 - Implementation of reserved matters 5. A09OP - Compliance with parameter plans 6. A08OP - Ground levels to be submitted 7. A01LS - Landscape - submission of details 8. A04LS - Landscaping (implementation) 9. A01GR - Removal of permitted development rights 10. A02HA - Construction of access 11. A04HA - Vehicular visibility at access to be approved 12. A32HA - Submission of construction method statement 13. A19MC - Refuse storage facilities to be approved 14. At least 10% of the energy supply of the development shall be secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources 15. Details of lighting to be approved 16. Piling - contractor to be members of the Considerate Construction Scheme 17. Hours of construction/noise generative works 18. Dust mitigation 19. Contaminated land 20. Submission of a drainage scheme including details in respect of surface water run-off 21. Scheme to dispose of foul and surface water 22. Flood risk 23. Flood risk - to prevent overland ... view the full minutes text for item 179. |
|
|
To consider the above application. Minutes: Consideration was given to the above application.
(Parish Councillor Geoff Seddon, representing Audlem Parish Council, Frances Mary Christie, representing Audlem Parish Plan Planning Group, Frances Mary Christie, representing Audlem Medical Practice attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).
RESOLVED
That the application be refused for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside, where according toPolicies NE.2 and RES.5 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan there is a presumption against new residential development. Such development would be harmful to its open character and appearance, which in the absence of a need for the development should be protected for its own sake. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land supply in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. As such the application is also premature to the emerging Development Strategy. Consequently, there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.
2. The proposal would result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and given that the Authority can demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for the development, which could not be accommodated elsewhere. The use of the best and most versatile agricultural land is unsustainable and contrary to Policy NE.12 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The proposal would involve the removal of an “important” hedgerow as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Policy NE5 of the local plan states that the Local Planning authority will protect, conserve and enhance the natural conservation resource where, inter alia, natural futures such as hedgerows are, wherever possible, integrated into landscaping schemes on development sites. In the absence of overriding reasons for allowing the development and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NR3 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011.
In the event of an Appeal Against this refusal a Section 106 Agreement should be entered into to secure the following:-
· £12,000 for speed limit changes · £261,483 for secondary education · £95,833 for medical provision · Provision of minimum of 1725sqm and of shared recreational open space and 2300sqm of shared children’s play space to include a skatepark · Private residents management company to maintain all on-site open space, including footpaths · Provision of off-site footpath link · 30% of the total dwellings as affordable with the tenure split of the affordable dwellings being 65% affordable rented and 35% intermediate. · Detailed scheme of size, number, tenures and types of affordable dwellings to be submitted with each phase of reserved matters · Affordable housing to be pepper-potted, · Affordable housing to be provided no later than occupation of 50% of the open market dwellings (or 80% if the development is phased and has high levels of pepper-potting), · Affordable housing ... view the full minutes text for item 180. |
|
|
To consider the above report. Minutes: Consideration was given to the above report.
RESOLVED
That for the reasons set out in the report the Board withdraw the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh reasons for refusal in respect of trees, design, amenity and medical infrastructure and the Interim Planning and Place Shaping Manager be instructed not to contest the issues at the forthcoming public inquiry and that the Interim Planning and Place Shaping Manager be instructed to enter into a Section 106 in respect of the forthcoming Appeal to secure the Heads of Terms as set out below:-
· £12,000 for speed limit changes · £261,483 for secondary education · £95,833 for medical provision · Provision of minimum of 1725sqm and of shared recreational open space and 2300sqm of shared children’s play space to include a skatepark · Private residents management company to maintain all on-site open space, including footpaths · Provision of off-site footpath link · 30% of the total dwellings as affordable with the tenure split of the affordable dwellings being 65% affordable rented and 35% intermediate. · Detailed scheme of size, number, tenures and types of affordable dwellings to be submitted with each phase of reserved matters · Affordable housing to be pepper-potted, · Affordable housing to be provided no later than occupation of 50% of the open market dwellings (or 80% if the development is phased and has high levels of pepper-potting), · Affordable housing to be built to meet the Design & Quality Standards required by the Homes & Communities Agency and meets Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. · Affordable housing to be transferred to and managed by a Registered Provider as set out in the Housing Act 1996. |
|
|
To consider the above application. Minutes: Consideration was given to the above application.
(The Interim Planning & Place Shaping Manager read out statements on behalf of Councillor D Brickhill and B Silvester).
RESOLVED
That the Appeal be contested on the following grounds:-
1. The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside, where according to Policies NE.2 and RES.5 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan there is a presumption against new residential development. Such development would be harmful to its open character and appearance, which in the absence of a need for the development should be protected for its own sake. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land supply in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. Consequently, there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.
2. The proposal would result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and given that the Authority can demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for the development, which could not be accommodated elsewhere. The use of the best and most versatile agricultural land is unsustainable and contrary to Policy NE.12 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The proposal is located within the Green Gap and would result in erosion of the physical gaps between built up areas as well as adversely affecting the visual character of the landscape, and given that there are other alternatives sites, which could be used to meet the Council’s housing land supply requirements, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy NE.4 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and the emerging Core Strategy.
4. The proposal would involve the removal of an “important” hedgerow as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Policy NE5 of the local plan states that the Local Planning authority will protect, conserve and enhance the natural conservation resource where, inter alia, natural futures such as hedgerows are, wherever possible, integrated into landscaping schemes on development sites. In the absence of overriding reasons for allowing the development and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NR3 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011.
5. The proposed development would not represent economically and socially sustainable development as there is no identified local need for the care provision. There is already an over-supply of such care provision in the locality which exceeds the needs for the current and future generations. The development would therefore be considered contrary to NPPF paras 7, 17 and 50.
6. The applicant has failed to demonstrated a safe and satisfactory means of access to the site, contrary to the provisions of Policy BE3 (Access) of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and ... view the full minutes text for item 182. |