Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor D Marren and J Wray.  Councillor J Clowes attended as a substitute for Councillor Wray. 

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 pre-determined any item on the agenda.

In relation to planning application 21/6250N Councillor S Pochin declared that she had submitted an objection to this application before she became a member of the Committee and that she would speak as a neighbouring ward councillor and then leave the meeting and take no part in the debate or vote on the application.

In relation to planning application 21/6250N Councillor S Davies declared that he had been contacted by the parish council in relation to the application but had not come to a view on the application.

In relation to planning application 21/6399C Councillor J Clowes declared that before she realised she would be substitute member of the committee she had been contacted by one of her parish councillors to clarify an issue as to whether to appeal or not.

In relation to planning application 21/6399C  Councillor M Benson declared he had received a letter from the applicant which he had copied to the planning officer and that he had not come to a view on the application even though he had called the application in to the committee.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2022.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2022 be approved as a correct record.

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 total period of 3 minutes is allocated for each of the planning applications for the following:

·                Members who are not members of the planning committee and are not the Ward Member

·                Objectors

·                Supporters

·                Applicants

The public speaking procedure was noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and spoke on the application:

Councillor R Bailey (Ward Councillor),  Councillor Jeff Seddon (Audlem Parish Council) and Mr Richard Walters (applicant).

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1          the application is located within the Open Countryside and outside of the Audlem Settlement Boundary.  The application is not supported by an up-to-date Housing Needs Survey to identify the need within the Parish.  Furthermore, a development of 28 affordable units would exceed the threshold criteria of 10 units identified by Policy SC6.  The proposed development would also cause harm to the open countryside/local landscape through urbanisastion and countryside encroachment and be contrary to Policy SC6 and PG 6 of the Cheshire Local Plan Strategy, Policy H1 of the Audlem Neighbourhood  Plan and the NPPF.

2          in absence of an assessment undertaken in accordance with the Defra Biodiversity ‘Metric’ the overall loss/gains of biodiversity is unknown.  There insufficient information has been provided in which to assess the full ecological impacts of the development.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies NE.9 of the Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and SE 3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, D8 of the Audlem Neighbourhood Plan and the guidance contained with the NPPF.

3          The design and layout of the proposed development is considered to be poor and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area.  The layout would also fail to provide suitable quantum and quality of open space provision.  As a result, the proposal would not make a positive contribution to the area and would be contrary to Policy SD1, SD2, SE1, SE6 of the CELPS, The Cheshire East Design Guide and Policy D1, CI1 of the Audlem Neighbourhood Plan and the requirements of the NPPF.

In order to give proper effect to the Committee’s intent and without changing the substance of its decision, authority is delegated to the Planning and Enforcement Manager in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice Chair) to correct any technical slip or omission in the resolution before issue of the decision notice.

Should the application be the subject of an appeal, agreement is given to enter into a S106 Agreement with the following Heads of Terms:

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and spoke in relation to the application:

Mr Nigel Crane (applicant).

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the report, the application be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

1          Time Limit

2          Approved plans

3          Materials in accordance with the submitted details

4          Obscure glazing to a minimum of 2m from floor level to bathroom window on the rear, northwest elevation.

5          Non-opening obscure glazing to the first-floor windows in the south east side elevation

6          Submission of details of plant and ventilation equipment to the pool house

7          All outbuildings within the site shall remain ancillary to the main dwelling house

8          Provision of electric vehicle infrastructure

9          Tree protection measures

10        Submission of a construction management plan

11        Landscaping and boundary treatments

12        Implementation of landscaping and boundary treatments

13        Hours of construction, Mon to Fri 8 am to 6 pm, Sat 9 am to 2 pm, no working on Sundays or public holidays

14        Submission of details of any piling operations

15        Submission of existing and finished ground and floor levels

16        Construction management plan

17        Submission of details of external lighting and CCTV

18        Submission of an ecological enhancement strategy (provision of bird and bat boxes, gaps for hedgehogs etc.)

In order to give proper effect to the Committee’s intentions and without changing the substance of the decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice Chair) of Southern 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 above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning applicatoion.

The following attended the meeting and spoke in relation to the application:

Mr Richard Lee (agent).

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the report the application be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

1          Standard Time

2          Approved plans

3          Materials to be submitted

4          Surfacing materials to be submitted

5          Landscape Scheme to be submitted

6          Landscape Implementation

7          Tree Protection scheme to be submitted

8          Tree and hedge retention

9          Ecological Enhancement Strategy to be submitted

10        Lighting Strategy to be submitted

11        Low emissions boilers – prior to occupation

12        EVI – prior to occupation

13        Detailed strategy/design and associated management/maintenance plan – required prior to commencement

14        Side windows to be obscure glazes

15        Removal of PD for Extensions and Outbuildings

16        Parking spaces (2 spaces for each unit to be marked out) and Bin Storage areas to be made available prior to first occupation

In order to give proper effect to the Committee’s intentions and without changing the substance of the decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation), in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice Chair) of the Southern 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 above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

The following attended the meeting and spoke in relation to the application:

Councillor S Pochin (neighbouring ward member) Mr Mark Bailey (Clerk to Brindley and Faddiley Parish Council) and Mr Richard Lee (agent).   

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          The proposed development is located within the open countryside and it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for the accommodation, that it could not be provided within an existing settlement or is required in conjunction with a particular countryside attraction.  The proposed development would be isolated from existing services and facilities and would be contrary to policies PG6, SD1 and EG4 of the CELPS and RUR8 of the SADPD.

(This decision was contrary to the report recommendation)