Agenda and minutes

None.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests and for Members to declare if they have a pre-determination in respect of any item on the agenda.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 14/4130C, Councillor S Gardiner declared that he used to work for the agents a long time ago.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 14/5635M, Councillor S Gardiner declared that the agent was a former colleague of his.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 14/0616C, Councillor S Gardiner declared that he did some work related to the application site a few years ago, however he had not commented on the proposals.

In the interest of openness Councillors Miss C Andrew, L Brown, Mrs H Gaddum, D Neilson and R West declared that they knew some of the public speakers speaking on the applications.

It was noted that a number of Members had received correspondence in respect of a number of applications on the agenda.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2015 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor L Gilbert, the Ward Councillor, Councillor Brain Bath, representing Holmes Chapel Parish Council and Steve Grimster, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred for more explanation from NHS England and Education about the lack of requirement for Section 106 contributions.

(This decision was contrary the Officer’s recommendation of approval.  Prior to consideration of the following application, Councillor B Livesley arrived to the meeting).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Parish Councillor Mrs T Jackson, representing Prestbury Parish Council, Dave Gowen, agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application.  In addition the Planning & Enforcement Manager read out a statement on behalf of Councillor P Findlow, the Ward Councillor.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for reasons relating to the scale, bulk, massing, the density of the development and out of character, contrary to policies BE1 and DC1.

(This decision was contrary the Officer’s recommendation of approval.  Prior to consideration of the following application, Councillor A Thwaite arrived to the meeting.  The meeting adjourned for a short break and Councillor H Gaddum left the meeting and did not return).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

RESOLVED

That the for the reasons set out in the report and in the written update to Committee, the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing the following:-

(i)            Commuted sum for offsite provision in lieu of on site, at a rate of £3,000 per family dwelling. The com sums would be used to make additions, enhancements and improvement to the existing and proposed amenity and children’s play facilities at South Park.

(ii)          Commuted sum for offsite provision in lieu of on site, at a rate of £1,000 per family dwelling. The com sums would be used to make additions, enhancements and improvement to the existing and proposed Recreation and Outdoor Sport facilities at South Park.

And subject to the following conditions:-

1.         A03FP             -  Commencement of development (3 years)

2.         A01OP             -  Submission of reserved matters

3.         A06OP             -  Commencement of development

4.         A10OP             -  Details to be submitted - restriction on 2 storey opposite existing 3 storey dwellings on Hatton Street and Armitt Street.

5.         A02EX             -  Submission of samples of building materials

6.         A22GR             -  Protection from noise during construction (hours of construction)

7.         A01GR             -  Removal of permitted development rights

8.         A08OP             -  Ground levels to be submitted with reserved matters application

9.         A32HA             -  Submission of construction method statement

10.       A19MC             -  Refuse storage facilities to be approved

11.       Foul drainage / surface water drainage

12.       Piling - contractor to be members of the Considerate Construction Scheme

13.       Hours of construction/noise generative works

14.       Contaminated land

15.       A scheme to minimise dust emissions

16.       Units to be up to a maximum of 10

17.       Visibility Splays

In order to give proper effect to the Committee’s intentions and without changing the substance of the decision, authority is delegated to the Planning and Enforcement Manager, in consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice Chaimanr) of Northern Planning Committee to correct any technical slip or omission in the wording of the resolution, between approval of the minutes and issue of the decision notice.

(Councillor L Roberts left the meeting and did not return).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Mr Widdows, the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

1.         R04LP             -  Inappropriate development in the Green Belt

(Councillors B Livesley and J Macrae left the meeting and did not return).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

RESOLVED

That application be deferred for more information/consideration of the affordable housing provision or contributions in lieu of provision of the site.

(The meeting was adjourned for a short period of time in order for Officers to seek clarification with the agent in respect of the application).

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