Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S Gardiner.

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.

Councillor Walton declared that with regard to applications 16/4087M and 16/3569M all Members of the Committee had received an email from one of the neighbours.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 7^th September 2016 as a correct record.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th September 2016 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 Planning Committee

·         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 planning committee and are not the Ward Member
• Objectors
• Supporters
• Applicants

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

(Councillor M Dudley-Jones (on behalf of Alderley Edge Parish Council),

Mrs H Jabr (Objector) and Mr K Seddon (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

The Committee considered a report regarding the above application.

RESOLVED

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

The proposal is an over development and over intensification of use causing harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The

development is therefore contrary to guidance within the National Planning

Policy Framework and policies BE1, BE2, BE3 and BE12 of the Macclesfield

Borough Local Plan and would cause harm to the objectives of those

policies.

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Planning and Enforcement Manager has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

To consider the above application.

(Mr K Seddon (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

The Committee considered a report regarding the above application.

RESOLVED

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

The proposal is an over development and over intensification of use causing harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The

development is therefore contrary to guidance within the National Planning

Policy Framework and policies BE1, BE2, BE3 and BE12 of the Macclesfield

Borough Local Plan and would cause harm to the objectives of those

policies.

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Planning and Enforcement Manager has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

To consider the above application.

(Councillor M Dudley-Jones (on behalf of Alderley Edge Parish Council), and Ms B Broderick (Objector – on behalf of Aberdeen Asset Management) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

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

RESOLVED

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

The proposal represents an over development and over intensification of use resulting in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, and lack of outdoor space.  The development is therefore contrary to guidance within the

National Planning Policy Framework and policies DC3, DC41 and H6 of the

Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and would cause harm to the objectives of

those policies.

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Planning and Enforcement Manager has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Following consideration of this application the meeting adjourned for lunch from 12.30 pm to 13.15 pm.

Councillor E Brooks left the meeting and did not return.

To consider the above application.

(Councillor Wells-Bradshaw (Ward Member), Mr A Keppel-Garner (on behalf of Knutsford Town Council), Mr B Chaplin (Objector) and Mr P Kelly (on behalf of the Applicant) attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

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

RESOLVED

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

The visual impact of proposed cladding would adversely affect the rural character of the area.  The proposals represent an inappropriate design not in keeping with nearby buildings or the vernacular of the local area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy BE1 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan which requires design to reflect local character.

Following consideration of this application, Councillor H Gaddum left the meeting and did not return.

To consider the above application.

The Committee considered a report regarding the above application.

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report, the application be APPROVED subject to completion of a revised Section 106 legal agreement and the following conditions (updated to reflect the agreement of details under application 16/3520M):

1.    Development in accord with approved plans

2.    Commencement of development (3 years)

3.    Landscaping (implementation)

4.    Construction specification/method statement

5.    Protection for breeding birds

6.    Details of balcony screens measuring 1.8m to be provided

7.    Submission of construction method statement

8.    Sustainable drainage scheme

9.    Dust

10.scheme for cycle storage to be provided

11.Floor Floating

12.Surface water drainage scheme to be submitted

13.Drainage to be put on a separate system

14.Electric vehicle charging points to be provided

15.Tree retention

16.Tree protection

17.Tree pruning / felling specification

18.Details of materials to be submitted

19.Additional landscaping details required- Boundary treatment, levels survey

20.Obscure glazing requirement

21.Protection of highway from mud and debris

22.Scheme for the management and maintenance of surface water

23.Scheme for pile driving to be submitted

24.Allocation of parking bays

25.Refuse facilities to be approved

26.Storage of mobility scooters

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 Chair) 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.

To consider the additional information in relation to reason 2 to refuse planning application 16/0834M in advance of formally issuing a decision notice.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That the reason for refusal No.2 (Trees) be removed from the resolution to refuse and that the application be refused for the following two reasons:

1)    Overdevelopment of the site – the proposed development would have insufficient space to provide outdoor amenity space consistent with that of the established character of the area. 

2)    Impact upon amenity of neighbouring properties