Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors L Durham and N Mannion.

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 interests of openness in respect of application 16/4064M, Councillor S Gardiner declared that he was known to a number of people speaking on the application in particular Adam Keppel-Garner, Brian Chaplin and Rick Dallimore.  Rick Dallimore was in the process of selling his house for him, therefore after taking Legal advice he stated that he would not take part in consideration of the application and indeed would leave the room prior to the application being considered.

In the interests of openness in respect of applications 16/4064M and 16/4527M, Councillor H Gaddum declared that she and the majority of Members on the Committee knew Councillor H Bradshaw-Wells who was the Ward Councillor speaking on application 16/4064M and Parish Councillor Mrs T Jackson who was a former Cheshire East and Macclesfield Borough Councillor speaking on application 16/4527M.

In the interests of openness in respect of application 16/4064M, Councillor G Walton declared that a number of people speaking on the application were know to him and that he owned an allotment close by to the application site.

In the interests of openness in respect of application 1616/4527M, Councillor G Walton declared that a resident approached him whilst he was on the site visit who also happened to be a former Borough Councillor.  He also knew one of the speakers in connection with the application.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2016 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 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

RESOLVED

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor H Wells-Bradshaw, the Ward Councillor, Adam Keppel-Garner, representing Knutsford Town Council, Brian Chaplin, representing South Knutsford Residents Group and North Knutsford Community Group, Rick Dallimore, representing the Egerton Youth Club, Ollie Strauss, representing the Knutsford School Sports Partnership, Tom Horner, representing the Knutsford Studio School and Tom O Donnell, representing Egerton Football Club attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report and in the verbal update to the Committee the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Commencement of development

2.         Development in accord with approved plans

3.         Lighting details to be approved

4.         Hours

5.         Provision of a cycle rack

6.         Paths to be widen in order to accommodate wheelchair access

7.         Marking out grasscrete area of the car park

8.         Additional screening at the Northern end of the pitch (eastern end of the site along Mereheath Lane) and where available

9.         Hours of floodlighting to be restricted between the hours of 9am and 10pm

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 Head of Planning (Regulation) be 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.

Prior to consideration of the application the Chairman advised that whilst he attend the site visit he had been approached by a local resident who discussed the site visit.  On the basis that this was a clear breach of protocol and that the impression of bias could be given he declared that he would leave the meeting prior to consideration of the application. 

Councillors C Browne and P Findlow declared that they had also been present but had not been in any discussions with the local resident, however they understood that there could be a perception of bias and in line with the advice of the Planning Lawyer they agreed to leave the room prior to consideration of the application.  Councillor P Findlow exercised his right to speak as the Ward Councillor under the public speaking procedure which he did and then he left the room.  As the Chairman and Vice Chairman would not be participating in the debate it was moved and seconded that Councillor H Gaddum should be appointed as the Chairman for the item.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor P Findlow, the Ward Councillor, Parish Councillor Mrs T Jackson, representing Prestbury Parish Council, Ian Bright, an objector and Gary Earnshaw, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site causing an almost complete built up frontage which would appear cramped within the street scene that is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DC1 and BE1 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan, the Prestbury Village Design Statement, and paragraph 64 of the NPPF.

Should this application be the subject of an appeal, authority be delegated to the Principal Planning Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee to ensure the following conditions are agreed:-

1. Submission of a detailed drainage scheme

2. Details of retaining wall

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to debate, 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.

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