Agenda and minutes

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests and for Members to declare if they have a pre-determination in respect of any item on the agenda.

Councillor Raynes declared a personal interest in respect of application number 11/3269M on the grounds that he is a member of Knutsford Town Council who had been consulted on this application, but that he had not pre-determined the application prior to this meeting.  In accordance with the code of conduct, he remained in the meeting during consideration of this item.

In the written statement that was read out on behalf of Councillor Walton, it was noted that Councillor Walton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application number 11/3269M on the grounds that he was a friend of the applicants.

It was noted that all Members had received correspondence from Mobberley Parish Council dated 23^rd April and 24^th April in relation to application number 11/1803M.  

Councillor Hunter declared that she had received correspondence dated 21^st April from Councillor D Bailey, Chairman of Mobberley Parish Council relating to application number 11/1803M.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th April 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Minute:107– 12/0290M – Vincent Mill, Vincent Street, Macclesfield SK11 6UJ: (Outline) Demolition of the Existing Buildings and Redevelopment of the Site to Provide 10 No. 2 to 4 Bedroom Terraced Houses and 1 No. 2/3 Storey Apartment Block with 7 No.2 Bedroom Units with Ancillary Car Parking, Open Space and Access off Vincent Street

Amendment as follows:

“(a) A Section 106 Agreement to secure:

·        A commuted sum of £51,000 for provision of Outdoor space and £9750 for recreation and outdoor sport.

·        Provision of 5 affordable houses which are made up of 3 units for rent and 2 units for intermediate tenure.”

A total period of 5 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for Ward Councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee.

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 planning committee and are not the Ward Member
• The relevant Town/Parish Council
• Local Representative Groups/Civic Society
• Objectors
• Supporters
• Applicants

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above planning application.

(Mr K Eckett (objector) and Alison Heine (agent) attended the meeting and addressed the committee on this matter).

The Committee considered a report regarding the above planning application, an updated report, a site layout plan, and an oral report by the Planning Officer.

During consideration of this application, the meeting was adjourned from

3.04-3.10 pm.

RESOLVED

That, contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation for approval, the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal would reduce openness and is an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt, as defined by the Development Plan.  The identified harm is not outweighed by considerations in favour of the proposal, therefore it is not considered that very special circumstances exist to justify the development in the Green Belt.  The development is therefore contrary to policies GC1, GC6 and DC23 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and would cause harm to the objectives of those policies.  The development is similarly contrary to national policy guidance relating to development within the Green Belt. 

To consider the above planning application.

(Caroline Preston (objector) and Graham Holborrow (on behalf of the applicant) attended the meeting and addressed the committee on this matter).

(A representation from Councillor G Walton, the Ward Councillor who was unable to attend the meeting, was read out by Peter Hooley).

The Committee considered a report regarding the above planning application, a site layout plan, and an oral report by the Planning Officer.

RESOLVED

That, contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation for approval, the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal would reduce openness and is an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt, as defined by the Development Plan.  The considerations in favour of the proposal are not considered to be sufficient to demonstrate an essential need for a rural worker to live at the site, therefore it is not considered that very special circumstances exist to justify the development in the Green Belt. The development is therefore contrary to policy GC1 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and would cause harm to the objectives of those policies.  The development is similarly contrary to national policy guidance relating to development within the Green Belt.