Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors J Hammond, Rachel Bailey,

 L Durham, S McGrory.

In the interests of openness in respect of application 15/5401M Councillor G Walton declared that as the Ward Member he had attended a number of Parish Council meetings and on and off site briefings.  However, he had not made any comments or expressed a view on this application.

With regard to application 15/5401M Councillor J Jackson declared that she had worked for Astra Zeneca for a period of time and was still a member of Club AZ and that she had not made any comments on the application or taken part in any discussions.

In the interests of openness in respect of application 15/5063N Councillor J Wray declared a pecuniary interest on the grounds that he was a board member of Wulvern Housing and would, therefore, leave the room prior to consideration of the application.

To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 27^th January 2016 and 18^th February (to follow) as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That subject to the following amendments, the minutes of the meeting held on 27^th January 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman:

Minute 109 – The third reason for refusal should be deleted, as this reason is no longer applicable.

That subject to the following amendments, the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th February 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman:

Minute 113 – Final paragraph, page 3 and first paragraph, page 4 should read:

A presentation was given by the Head of Planning Strategy relating to the key changes to Strategic Policy followed by a debate by Members.

A further presentation was given by the Head of Planning Strategy and Spatial Planning Officers on site Specific Recommendations, which provided a brief overview on each town.

A number of comments were made by Members of the Board in respect of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and site Specific Recommendations – Proposed Changes.

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 Strategic Planning Board

·         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 Strategic Planning Board and are not the Ward Member

·         Objectors

·         Supporters

·         Applicants

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

The Board considered a report and written and verbal updates regarding the above application.

(Councillor Y Bentley (on behalf of Nether Alderley Parish Council),

Dr C Doherty read out a statement on behalf of Mr C Brindsmead, CBE, (supporter), who had registered to speak, but was unable to attend the meeting) and Mr G Halman (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report the Board be MINDED TO APPROVE the application subject to referral to the Secretary of State and that the details of the Section 106 Agreement be Delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation) and Chairman and Vice Chairman to secure:

 HEADS OF TERMS OF S106 AGREEMENT

·        Alderley Park Re-investment Reserve

The new land value realised from the residential development to be re-invested in the Life Science Park.

·        Traffic Measures

Financial contribution towards the A34 Congleton Road/A537 Chelford Road junction of £250,000.

·        Education

£1,147,287 (Although it needs to be noted tis is subject to change depending on the exact numbers of properties developed on site)

·        Improvements at Nether Alderley Parish Hall to the sum of £145,000 and Over Alderley Parish Hall

·        Affordable Housing

      Off site sum of £2,100,000

·        Provision of “Life Science Park Employee Accommodation”

21 units are proposed based on 275 dwellings

·        Public Rights of Way improvements

      £19,904.60

And the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development (3 years) or 2 from date of approval of reserved matters
2. Reserved matters to be approved
3. Development in accord with approved plans/documents
4. Phasing condition
5. Submission of samples of building materials/public realm works for each phase
6. Landscaping - submission of details for each phase (including enhanced landscaping at Mereside Car park)
7. Landscaping (implementation)

8.  Landscaping to include details of boundary treatment

9.  Tree retention

10. Tree protection

11. Tree Pruning/Felling Specification

12. Phased Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement    complying with “BS 5837:2012

12. Submission of Construction and Demolition Management Plan

13. Contaminated land report for each phase

14. Verification report for remediation strategy to be submitted

15. Measures to deal with contamination if found

16. Piling or other foundation designs using penetrative methods to be approved.

16. Noise mitigation scheme to be submitted

17. Scheme to minimise dust emissions to be submitted

18. Construction & Environmental Management Plan to be submitted with each phase

19. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure to be provided

20. Travel plan to be implemented

21. Parking provision

22. Detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of surface water drainage for the site using sustainable drainage methods to be submitted

23. Site to be drained on a total separate system

24. Public Rights of way improvements

25. Wheelwash facilities to be provided

26. Lighting to be agreed for each phase

27. Recording of historic landscape

28. Condition/method statement for repair of heritage assets to be agreed, and implemented to retain on site

29.Sports pitch specifications

30. Indoor sports facilities to comply with NGB/SE standards

31. Viability to demonstrate the sustainability of the sporting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

To consider the above application.

The Board considered a report and written and verbal updates regarding the above application.

(Ms N Roe (objector) and Mr G Bee (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application)

RESOLVED

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

The proposal seeks to provide a retail use on a site allocated for employment purposes.  The existing warehouse and office buildings on the site are currently occupied, and it has therefore not been demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment purposes, as required by paragraph 22 of the NPPF.   The development is therefore contrary to policies E1 and E2 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and policy EG3 of the Submission Version of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy.

To consider the above application.

The Board considered a report and written and verbal updates regarding the above application.

(Councillor S Corcoran (Ward Member), Councillor C Lowe (on behalf of Sandbach Town Council), Councillor B Moran (Neighbouring Ward Member) and Mr S Artiss (Applicant) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application)

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report the application be DEFERRED to enable Officers to seek additional information relating to:

·         Wildlife corridor and boundaries

·         Ecology

·         Sandbach Town Neighbourhood Plan

Following consideration of this application, Councillor M Sewart left the meeting and did not return.

The meeting adjourned at 15.35 pm for a short break.

To consider the above application.

Prior to consideration of this application, as stated in his declaration, Councillor J Wray left the meeting and returned following consideration of application number 15/5063N.

The Board considered a report and written update regarding the above application.

Mr B Fulster (Applicant) and Ms G Mellor (on behalf of Wulvern Housing – Applicant) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application)

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement of development (3 years)

2. Development in accord with approved plans, including, materials, levels, boundary treatments

3. Delivery of affordable housing

4. Grampian condition mitigation for Lesser silver diving beetle and Mud snail

5. Mitigation for Breeding Birds in accordance with submitted details

6. Reptile method statement

7. Submission of landscape scheme

8. Submission of drainage scheme

9. Arboricultural method statement and tree protection measures

10. Dust Management and site welfare plan in accordance with details provided

11. Noise mitigation scheme

12. Details of lighting to be submitted

13. Details of construction management plan
14. Electric vehicle charging points to be provided for dwellings

15. Travel plan to be submitted

16. Phase II investigation to be submitted

17. Bin Storage

18. Cycle Storage

Informatives:

1.    Hours of construction

2.    Contamination informative

3.    Environment Agency contamination informative

To consider an update to the reasons for refusal in advance of the upcoming appeal

(Councillor B Moran (Neighbouring Ward Member) and Mr J Minshull (Supporter) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application)

The Board considered a report regarding an update to the reasons for refusal relating to planning application 14/3892C, which had been determined by the Strategic Planning Board on 3^rd June 2015.  Since the refusal of this application an appeal had been lodged and it was now necessary to update the reasons for refusal to reflect the current policy position.

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report, the appeal be defended on the following grounds:

To consider an update to the reasons for refusal in advance of the upcoming appeal

The Board considered a report regarding an update to the reasons for refusal relating to planning application 14/5921C, which had been determined by the Strategic Planning Board on 15^th April 2015.  Since the refusal of this application an appeal had been lodged and it was now necessary to update the reasons for refusal to reflect the current policy position.

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report, the appeal be defended on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is an unsustainable form of development as it is located within the Open Countryside and is contrary to Policies PS8 and H6 of the Congleton Borough Adopted Local Plan First Review 2005 and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed development would result in a harmful encroachment into the open countryside. The development would adversely impact upon the landscape character and does not respect or enhance the landscape when viewed from the local footpath network. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies GR1 and GR5 of the Congleton Borough Adopted Local Plan First Review and guidance contained within the NPPF.

3. The Local Planning Authority considers that having regard to the location of the proposed development which would not be directly related to the settlements of Brereton or Brereton Heath as defined by key map C20a and key map C20b contained within Brereton Neighbourhood Plan, the proposed development would be contrary to policy HOU01 which restricts development within the Parish of Brereton to the settlement boundaries of these locations only. As a result the development would be contrary to guidance contained at Paragraph 216 of the NPPF and guidance contained within the NPPG.

4. The proposal is contrary to Policy PG2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Submission Version March 2014. The site is located in the parish of Brereton which is identified as an 'other settlement and rural area' for the purposes of this policy where growth should be confined to small scale infill, change of use or conversions or affordable housing developments. The proposed development is of a significant scale which does not reflect the function and character of Brereton and is therefore contrary to the principles of Policy PG2.

And that authority to enter into a s106 Agreement to secure any necessary contributions be delegated to Head of Planning (Regulation) in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of the Strategic Planning Board.

To consider an update to the reasons for refusal in advance of the upcoming appeal

(Councillor B Moran (Neighbouring Ward Member) had registered to speak on this application, but chose not to speak at the meeting.

Mr J Minshull (Supporter) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application)

The Board considered a report regarding an update to the reasons for refusal relating to planning application 14/1189C, which had been determined by the Strategic Planning Board on 3^rd June 2015.  Since the refusal of this application an appeal had been lodged and it was now necessary to update the reasons for refusal to reflect the current policy position.

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report, the appeal be defended on the following grounds:

1.     The Local Planning Authority considers that having regard to the cumulative impact of developments in Sandbach that the proposed development would be contrary to Policy PC1, PC3 and H1 contained within the Sandbach Neighbourhood plan and that the development when taken cumulatively with other developments in Sandbach would prejudice the local plan making process. As a result the development would be contrary to guidance contained at Paragraph 216 of the NPPF and guidance contained within the NPPG.

2.    Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning balance, it is considered that the development is unsustainable because of the conflict with the draft Sandbach Neighbourhood plan and because of the unacceptable environmental and economic impact of the scheme in terms of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and open countryside. These factors significantly and demonstrably outweigh the social benefits in terms of its contribution to boosting housing land supply, including the contribution to affordable housing. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies PS8 and H6 of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review 2005 and Policies PG 5 and SE 2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Submission Version and the provisions of the NPPF.