Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Rachel Bailey, P Hoyland and D Newton.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 13/4683W and 13/4685W, Councillor J Hammond declared that he was a Member of Haslington Parish Council and the Cheshire Wildlife Trust who were consultees on the applications, however he had not made any comments on either of the applications.

In the interest of openness in respect of the same applications, Councillor Mrs L Smetham also declared that she was a Member of Cheshire Wildlife Trust who were a consultee on the applications, however she had not made on comments on either application.

In the interest of openness in respect of the same applications, Councillor D Brickhill declared that he was well acquainted with the applicant and therefore would sit in the public gallery when both of the applications were being considered.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 14/3649C and 14/3657C, Councillor D Brown declared that he had received correspondence from a number of action groups, however he had expressed no opinion.  It was noted that the majority of Members had received correspondence in respect of applications 14/3649C and 14/3657C.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 13/4683W, 13/4685W and item 12 Land adjacent to Heath End Farm, Hassall Road, Alsager, Councillor D Hough declared that he was a Member of Alsager Town Council.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 14/4296N, Councillor D Brickhill declared that he spoken to Councillor Mrs J Clowes, the Ward Councillor and Mr Heler, an objector about the application, however he had only discussed the application in principal and not in detail.

In the interest of openness in respect of the same application, Councillor G Walton declared that he had received an email from Mr Heler who was an objector to the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 14/5338C, Councillor Mrs L Smetham declared that she had friends living in the vicinity of the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 14/4296N, Councillor S Gardiner declared that he knew some of the speakers speaking on the application.

RESOLVED

That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 individuals/groups:

·         Members who are not members of the Strategic Planning Board and are not the Ward Member

·         The relevant Town/Parish Council

·         Local representative Groups/Civic Society

·         Objectors

·         Supporters

·         Applicants

RESOLVED

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor R Domleo, the Ward Councillor, Councillor Mrs Rhoda Bailey, a visiting Councillor, Town Councillor Paul Bates, representing Congleton Town Council and James Green, representing West Heath Action Group 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, contrary to Policy PS8 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review 2005, Policy PG5 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy - Submission Version and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure development is directed to the right location and open countryside is protected from inappropriate development and maintained for future generations enjoyment and use. As such it and creates harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

2.     The proposed development when taken cumulatively with other committed developments in the Congleton area would exceed the spatial distribution of development for Congleton as identified within Policy PG6 (Spatial Distribution of Development) of the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version. This is supported by comments made by the Inspector at Paragraphs 70-80 of the Inspectors Interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted Local Plan Strategy. As such the proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development. Given the advanced stage of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, the proposed development would also be premature as a result and contrary to National Policy Guidance.

3.    The proposed development would have an adverse cumulative impact on ecology and protected species which cannot be appropriately mitigated contrary to Policy NR3 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan and biodiversity policies within the NPPF.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.  The meeting adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(James Green, representing West Heath Action Group 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, contrary to Policy PS8 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review 2005, Policy PG5 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy - Submission Version and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure development is directed to the right location and open countryside is protected from inappropriate development and maintained for future generations enjoyment and use. As such it and creates harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

2.    The proposed development when taken cumulatively with other committed developments in the Congleton area would exceed the spatial distribution of development for Congleton as identified within Policy PG6 (Spatial Distribution of Development) of the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version. This is supported by comments made by the Inspector at Paragraphs 70-80 of the Inspectors Interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted Local Plan Strategy. As such the proposal would result in an unsustainable form of

development. Given the advanced stage of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, the proposed development would also be premature as a result and contrary to National Policy Guidance.

3.    The proposed development would have an adverse cumulative impact on ecology and protected species which cannot be appropriately mitigated contrary to Policy NR3 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan and biodiversity policies within the NPPF.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.  The meeting adjourned for lunch from 1.00pm until 1.45pm).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Town Councillor Derek Longhurst, representing Alsager Town Council, Sylvia Dyke, representing Residents Around White Moss Quarry Group and Cath Mainwaring, an objector attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1.         The proposed hours of plant maintenance do not conform with those stipulated in the development plan and special circumstances have not been demonstrated to justify any deviation from the policy.  As such the proposal conflicts with the provisions of policy 37 of the Cheshire Replacement Minerals Local Plan;

2.         Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed variation would not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of nearby residential properties which is contrary to policies 9 and 26 of Cheshire Replacement Minerals Local Plan, and policies and NE. 17 and BE.1 of Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan and guidance within the NPPF.

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 Principal Planning 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.

Should this application be the subject of an appeal, authority be delegated to the Principal Planning Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Board to enter into a planning agreement in accordance with the S106 Town and Country Planning Act to secure the Heads of Terms for a S106 Agreement.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Town Councillor Derek Longhurst, representing Alsager Town Council, Sylvia Dyke, representing Residents Around White Moss Quarry Group and Cath Mainwaring, an objector attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1.         The proposed hours of plant maintenance do not conform with those stipulated in the development plan and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify any deviation from the policy.  As such the proposal conflicts with the provisions of policy 29 of the Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan;

2.         Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed variation would not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of nearby residential properties which is contrary to policies 12 and 23 of Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan, and policies and NE. 17 and BE.1 of Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan and guidance within the NPPF and NPPW.

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 Principal Planning 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.

Should this application be the subject of an appeal, authority be delegated to the Principal Planning Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Board to enter into a planning agreement in accordance with the S106 Town and Country Planning Act to secure the Heads of Terms for a S106 Agreement.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

RESOLVED

That the application to vary condition 4 and remove conditions 35 and 36 to planning application 13/2746C be refused.  The reason for this decision was to ensure that the Reserved Matters application provided a form of development which respected the character of the existing area and respected the amenity of the existing residents.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor Mrs J Clowes, the Ward Councillor, Parish Councillor C Knibbs, representing Hatherton & Walgherton Parish Council, Mr Frodsham, representing Stand Together Against New Development, STAND, John Bache, an objector, John Dwyer, an objector, Mike Heler, an objector and Simon Newall, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the applciation0.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1. The development of the proposed solar park would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the site. In particular the views from public footpath 9 an 12 Hatherton and 2 Hunterston. This adverse impact

significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme in terms

of renewable energy production. The proposal is therefore contrary to

paragraph 98 of the NPPF and Policies NE.2, and NE.19 of the Borough of

Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011.

2. The proposal would result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural

land. 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, Paragraph 112 of the National Planning

Policy Framework and guidance contained within paragraph 13 of the Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Section of the Planning Practice

Guidance.

(This decision as contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.  The meeting adjourned for a short break.  Councillor B Murphy left the meeting and did not return).

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

(Peter Minshull, representing Congleton Sustainability Group attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That reasons one and two be amended as follows:-

1.The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside, contrary to Policy PS8  of the Congleton Borough Local Plan  First Review 2005, Policy PG5 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy - Submission Version and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure development is directed to the right location and open countryside is protected from inappropriate development and maintained for future generations enjoyment and use. As such it and creates harm to interests of acknowledged importance

2.The proposal would result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.  The use of the best and most versatile agricultural land is inefficient  and contrary to Policy  SE2 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy - Submission Version  and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation to remove reasons one and two and to instruct the Principal Planning Manager not to contest the issues at the forthcoming Appeal).

To consider the above report.

(During consideration of the application, Councillor D Brickhill left the meeting and did not return).

Consideration was given to the above report.

(Town Councillor Derek Longhurst, representing Alsager Town Council, Sue Helliwell, an objector and Steve Irvine, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application.  In addition a statement was read out by the Principal Planning Officer on behalf of Councillor R Fletcher the Ward Councillor).

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report, the Board withdraw the following reasons for refusals and instruct the Principal Planning Manager not to contest the issues at the forthcoming Appeal:-

1.         The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside, contrary to Policies PS8 (Open Countryside) and H6 (Residential Development in the Open Countryside) of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review 2005, Policy PG 5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Submission Version and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and create harm to interests of acknowledged importance. 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 contrary 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 proposed development would involve the removal of an “important” hedgerow as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Policy NR3 of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review, states that proposals for development that would result in the loss or damage to important hedgerows will only be allowed if there are overriding reasons for allowing the development. Therefore the scheme is contrary to Policy NR3 of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review and guidance contained within the NPPF.

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That authority be delegated to Cheshire West & Chester Council to determine the forthcoming application for Cheshire Fresh, Middlewich.