Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H Davenport, J Jackson and S Pochin.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 16/4601N and 16/2229C, Councillor J Hammond declared he was a Director of ANSA Environmental Services Ltd who were consultees on the applications, however he had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 15/4888N, Councillor J Hammond declared that he was a Member of Haslington Parish Council and the RSPB who were consultees on the application, however he had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.

In respect of application 15/4601N, Councillor J Hammond declared that the majority of Members had received a letter from the Principal of Reaseheath College and an email from Mr Gerald Emerton.  Similarly in respect of application 15/4888N, Councillor J Hammond declared that the majority of Members had received a letter form the Land Director of Persimmon Homes Limited.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 16/4601N and 16/2229C, Councillor S Hogben declared he was a Director of ANSA Environmental Services Ltd who were consultees on the applications, however he had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 15/4601N, Councillor D Hough declared that he was a Member of Alsager Town Council, however he had not commented on the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application16/2999C, Councillor D Hough declared that he had voted on a similar application in the past.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 15/4888N, Councillor L Smetham declared that she was a member of the RSPB who were a consultee on the application, however she had not made any comments nor taken part in any discussions.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to point four of the Section 106 Agreement under application 16/4558C being amended  as follows:-

Both education contributions to be provided in following phases 50% at the 1st occupation of the 30th unit and 50% at the 1st occupation of the 100th unit.

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

RESOLVED

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor M Jones, the Ward Councillor, Councillor A Moran, a visiting Councillor, Parish Councillor Michael Houlston, the Chairman of Acton Edleston & Henhull Parish Council, Jeff Stubbs, representing Nantwich Civic Society who were objecting, Meredydd David, representing Reaseheath College and Jon 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 update to Board the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.         A02RM             -  To comply with outline permission

2.         A05RM             -  Time limit following approval of reserved matters

3.         A01AP             -  Development in accord with approved plans

4.         A06EX             -  Materials as application

5.         A25GR             -  Obscure glazing requirement

6.         Provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure

7.         Habitat management plan is to be submitted

8.         Development to be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted badger mitigation and water mitigation strategies

9.         Updated badger survey to be submitted prior to the commencement of the A51 diversion and further phases

10.       Appointment of ecological clerk of works and submission of an ecological monitoring and reporting strategy

11.       Contamination not previously identified

12.       No dwellings or building to be placed within the modelled flood zone 2 or 3 areas.

13.       Surface water management strategy shall not be compromised by fluvial flooding up to a 1 in 100yr + climate change event.

14.       Detailed plans to be submitted for all additional waterbodies to be provided or enhanced as part of the ecological mitigation strategy.

15.       Soft landscaping details to be submitted

16.       Hard landscaping details (including spine road) to be submitted

17.       Implementation of landscape scheme

18.       Full details for existing and proposed levels and contours for all open space areas, including cross sections to be submitted

19.       Development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment

20.       Construction Specification/method statement (trees/hedges)

21.       Footpath along western river bank to be provided and retained and available for public use at all times thereafter

22.       Details of signage and any necessary watercourse crossings (bridges) for the riverside walk to be submitted

23.       Floodlighting details for MUGA to be submitted

24.       The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation details set out in the submitted noise report.

25.       Broadband

26.       Cycle storeage-Details to be submitted

Informative to say that on receipt of future on site applications there is an

opportunity to secure TRO’s if deemed necessary to manage emerging traffic

management issues resulting from this development.

In order to give proper effect to the Board’s intentions and without changing

the substance of the decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning

(Regulation) in consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice

Chairman) of the Strategic Planning Board, to correct any technical slip or

omission in the wording of the resolution, between approval of the minutes

and issue of the decision notice.

(The meeting adjourned for lunch from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor M Deakin, neighbouring Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Phil Williams, representing Alsager Town Council, Sylvia Dyke, an objector and Alan Thorley, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application.  In addition a statement was read out on behalf of Councillor R Fletcher who was the neighbouring Ward Councillor).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1.         The proposed residential development is unacceptable because it is located within the Open Countryside, contrary to Policies NE.2 (Open Countryside) and RES.5 (Housing in Open Countryside) of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan, Policy PG 5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Consultation Draft March 2016 and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and create harm to interests of acknowledged importance. Consequently, there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.

2.         The proposal constitutes a premature development which would compromise the Spatial Vision for the future development of the rural areas within the Borough, contrary to Policies PG2 and PG6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Consultation Draft March 2016 and guidance within the NPPF.

3.         It has not been suitably demonstrated that the ecological benefits of this proposal will be at a level to surpass the expected ecological value of the site upon completion of the agreed restoration scheme. Therefore the application is contrary to Policies NE.5, NE.6, NE.7, NE.8 and NE.9 of the Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan, Policy SE3 of the emerging Cheshire Easy Local Plan Strategy and guidance within the NPPF.

4.         Insufficient information has been submitted with the application that demonstrates the proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI and Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and local Sites of Biological Importance. Therefore the application is contrary to Policies NE.6, NE.7 and NE.8 of the Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan, Policy SE3 of the emerging Cheshire Easy Local Plan Strategy and guidance within the NPPF.

5.         Insufficient information has been submitted with the application that demonstrates the proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the operation of the local highway network. Therefore the application is contrary to Policy BE.1 of the Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan, Policy SE3 of the emerging Cheshire Easy Local Plan Strategy and guidance within the NPPF.

In order to give proper effect to the Board`s intentions and without changing the substance of the decision, authority is delegated to Head of Planning (Regulation), in consultation with the Chair of SPB, to correct any technical slip or omission in the wording of the resolution, between approval of the minutes and issue of the decision notice.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor M Deakin, the neighbouring Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Sue Helliwell, representing Alsager Town Council, Sue Davies, the Clerk to Church Lawton Parish Council and Stephen Harris, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application.  In addition a statement was read out on behalf of Councillor Rhoda Bailey who was a neighbouring Ward Councillor).

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report and in the oral update to Board, the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Approved Plans

2.         Materials to be submitted

3.         Submission of a landscaping scheme

4.         Implementation of the approved landscape scheme

5.         Boundary Treatment details to be submitted for approval

6.         Land levels to be submitted and approved (including mitigation for surface water flooding)

7.         Other Protected Species Mitigation in accordance with submitted report

8.         Other protected species protective fencing

9.         Requirement for submission and implementation of a woodland management plan

10.       Amended Arboricultural Method Statement and tree protection plan to be submitted. Implementation of submitted tree protection measures and adherence to submitted Arb Method Statement.

11.       Submission of site specific engineer design details for any areas of hard surfacing and retaining structures within root protection areas.

12.       Service/ drainage layout

13.       Where required by condition 10, no development shall take place until details of an Engineer designed no dig hard surface construction specification for any area of hard surfacing within the root protection area of retained trees, together with details of any proposed retaining structures within root protection areas have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

14.       Details of the play equipment within the LEAP to be submitted and approved

15.       Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing the  feasibility of a pedestrian link between the development site and the proposed amenity green space known as the burial ground, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The scheme shall address any implications associated with the potential impacts upon ecology, retained trees and land levels, and, if found to be feasible details of its means of construction and a scheme of implementation shall be provided. If a scheme for pedestrian access is found to be feasible, then the pedestrian link shall be provided in strict accordance with the approved details and made available in accordance with the scheme of implementation.

16.       Land levels to be submitted and approved within the local flood risk levels

17.       Broadband

18.       Cycle and bin storage details to be submitted

19.       Electric vehicle charging points

20.       Traffic calming measures within the site to be submitted and agreed

In addition two informatives were added in relation to Flood risk.

In order to give proper effect to the Board`s intentions and without changing the substance of the decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation), in consultation with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That the Director of Planning & Sustainable Development be recommended to respond to the Combined Authority with the comments set out in Appendix One of the report as well as the following additional comments:-

(i)            Need to factor in health facilities

(ii)          Impact on growth plans to be factored in

(iii)         Importance of distribution of development

(iv)         HS2 parkway

(v)          Buxton and Rose Hill stations

(vi)         Extending metrolink to some places ie Woodford

(vii)        Need for more promotion of public transport

(viii)      Concern over the scale of development should be expressed more forcefully

(ix)         The comments on green belt should also be made more strongly and explicitly

(x)          The cumulative effect of development would be a merging of settlements such as Handforth with adjoining areas of Greater Manchester

(xi)         Once the areas were physically conjoined, then administrative amalgamation would likely follow

(xii)        Transport was a particular concern- and the SEMMMS Refresh must be employed to provide cross boundary transport solutions

(xiii)      There would be an impact on Local public services – not just education – and this needed to be looked at comprehensively

(xiv)      With regard to the development at High Lane, the concept of extending the railway South of Rose Hill station was strongly supported – and this should be extended so as to at least join with the station at Middlewood

(xv)        Aside from Heald Green, all sites appeared to pose problems

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That Council be recommended to approve the requested delegations as set out in the report subject to the following minor amendments to three paragraphs contained in the report:-

Paragraph 4.1

As set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance, where an Inspector considers that modifications are required to make a submitted Local Plan sound, the Inspector can recommend such Main Modifications to the local planning authority. A Main Modification is defined as a change that materially affects a policy in the plan and is required to make the  Submitted Local Plan Strategy sound and legally compliant.

Paragraph 4.2

At the close of the hearing sessions in October 2016, the Inspector indicated that he envisages preparing a short report outlining any further work the Council may need to undertake along with any amendments (Main Modifications) that are needed to ensure the plan is sound and can be adopted. As part of the formal Examination process, there will need to be a formal six week period of public consultation on the Inspector’s draft Recommended Main Modifications and this consultation will be carried out under the direction of the Inspector

Paragraph 5.2

Further Examination hearings were held over six weeks in September and October 2016 to consider new issues arising from the public consultation as well as the Strategic Sites and Strategic Locations in the plan. At the close of these hearings, the Inspector indicated that he envisages preparing a short report outlining any further work the Council may need to undertake along with any amendments (Main Modifications) that are needed to ensure the plan is sound and can be adopted. Once the Inspector has considered the representations to the Main Modifications, he will submit his final report to the Council, including his conclusions on the legal compliance and soundness of the Plan and the reasons for any Main Modifications. It is at this point that the Council will consider the Inspector’s final report and decide whether to formally adopt the Plan with the recommended Main Modifications.

To consider the above urgent item.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That part withdrawal of the reasons for refusal in respect of the impact on Barn Owls be agreed and that the Head of Planning (Regulation) be instructed not to contest that issue at the forthcoming Appeal.