Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J Macrae.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/0195C, Councillor J Hammond declared that he was a Director of ANSA who were a consultee however he had not made any comments nor been in any discussions relating to the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/0195C, Councillor S Hogben declared that he was a Director of ANSA who were a consultee however he had not made any comments nor been in any discussions relating to the application.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2017 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2017 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 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 this application.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To consider this application.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To consider this application.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To consider this application.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To consider this application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor Paul Bates, the Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Amanda Martin, representing Congleton Town Council, Peter Minshull, an objector and Mike Stone, representing the applicant 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 Policies PS8 (Open Countryside), GR1 (New Development), GR2 (Design), H6 (Residential Development in the Open Countryside and the Green Belt) of the Congleton Local Plan, Policies PG5 (Open Countryside) and SD1 (Sustainable Development in Cheshire East) of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 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 creates 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 visibility of an existing access opposite the proposed site access has been affected by the revised access plans and the visibility has been reduced to an unacceptable distance, rendering the access unsafe and unsuitable for the existing residents. The reduced carriageway widths and on-street parking on Waggs Road and Fol Hollow are existing issues. However the inadequate infrastructure that provides access to the site and schools is considered not to be of a satisfactory standard to support further major development proposals whose generated traffic will have a direct impact on both Waggs Road and Fol Hollow. As a result the development would have a severe adverse impact on Waggs Road and Fol Hollow, due to the sub-standard nature of these two highway routes. This severe adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme namely housing land supply. The development is therefore contrary to Policies GR1 (New Development), GR2 (Design), GR3, GR7, GR9 (New Development), GR10 and GR18 (Traffic Generation) of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan, Policies SD1 (Sustainable Development in Cheshire East), SD2 (Sustainable Development Principles), SC3 (Health and Well-being), C01 (Sustainable Travel and Transport) of the Emerging Cheshire East Local Plan and the requirements of 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 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.

Should the application be subject to an appeal, authority is delegated to Head of Planning (Regulation) to secure the following obligations as part of any S106 Agreement:-

1.         A scheme for the provision of 30% affordable housing – 65% to be provided as social rent/affordable rent with 35% intermediate tenure. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

To receive this report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report the changes to the S106 Heads of Terms in relation to the MEB contribution as set out below be approved:-

‘A contribution towards Middlewich Eastern Bypass of £4,780,000. If the MEB is not delivered the sum will be spent on the following highway/sustainability measures: Bus Service/Facility Improvements; Town Bridge – Signal Junction Improvements; Cycle Lanes -Towpath: Middlewich to Glebe Farm; Cycle Lanes -Carriageway Modification: Middlewich to Glebe Farm; and Cycle Lanes -Towpath: Glebe Farm to Elworth. The sum is to be paid in 4 equal stages on the first occupation of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of the dwellings approved on the site at the Reserved Matters stage’.

(Councillor D Hough requested it be minuted that he voted against the decision to approve).

To consider amendments to the Council’s Design Guide.

The Chairman has agreed that this be considered as an item of urgent business as to delay would mean it could not be considered by the Strategic Planning Board prior to the date of the proposed Portfolio Holder Decision meeting.

Consideration was given to the above report.

Members raised the following points:-

(i)         In respect of issue 43 on page 39 – the proposed modification should be reworded to make clear that proposals that do not meet the required quality of design should be refused or deferred to allow amendment.

(ii)        Issue 49 – was car pooling relevant to Cheshire East and how would it work?

(iii)       Modification ref. 57 should not specifically identify that 20mph signage is unnecessary and it should be encouraged in new development (especially given the initiatives to provide 20mph signage in proximity to schools)

(iv)       Why was there no guidance on bin storage, when guidance on cycle storage was provided?

(v) Why was there no guidance on rural types of development given that large parts of the Borough were rural? Production of further guidance in relation to rural development was strongly advocated.

(vi) Report made reference to Places Matter comments not being fully incorporated.  What had been taken into account and what had been discounted?

(vii)      Why were Poynton and Holmes Chapel specifically chosen as additional sample settlements?  It was recommend that all Key Service and Local Service Centres have sample settlement guidance.

(viii)     Updated snapshot vision of Cheshire East towns important to determine their capacity.

(ix)       Need to ensure that the raising of design standards did not deter brownfield development.

(x)        Wilmslow Parks SPDs currently ‘saved’ SPDs.  How would continuity and joined up consideration of policy be secured?

(xi)       No specific mention of the provision of bungalows within housing developments, when there was an acknowledged shortage.

(xii)      Parking – garages tended to be too small to be usable and insufficient parking was provided causing unplanned parking on street – suggestion that bollards should be used to prevent fly parking on pavements.

(xiii) No specific mention of special needs/end of life housing within the Design Guide.

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report the Planning and Housing Portfolio Holder be recommended to approve the incorporation of proposed amendments (set out in appendix A of the report) to the Cheshire East Residential Design Guide and its adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document subject to the Portfolio Holder taking into consideration the comments outlined above.