Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor L Crane.

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 the interest of openness the following declarations were made:

Councillor M Muldoon declared that in relation to application 21/4635C,  he was the Vice Chair of Sandbach Town Council’s Planning Committee which had discussed this application and that he would step down from the committee for this item and take no part in the discussions or vote on the item.

Councillor R Bailey declared that in relation to application 23/1366N, she had previously traded with the organisation but was not aware of any transactions that had taken place within the last 5 years.

Councillor R Bailey declared that in relation to application 22/477796N, she knew the applicant and had traded with the agent previously and stated that she had not discussed the application with them.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2023 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

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

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

Councillor Janet Clowes (ward councillor), Ed Roberts (objector) and Georgina Carter (applicant).

RESOLVED:

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

1.         Standard Time

2.         Approved Plans

3.         Materials as set out

4.         Stack height of at least 7m

5.         Biodiversity Enhancement strategy

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 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 planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

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

Wrenbury Parish Councillor David Nutting, Nigel Spicer (objector) and Carl Copestake (agent).

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause cumulative harm to the adjacent residential dwellings in terms of noise, disturbance and dust.  The proposed development is contrary to policies SE12 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, HOU12 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, LEC1 of the Wrenbury Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF.

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 has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Southern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

This decision was contrary to the recommendation in the report.

The meeting adjourned for a short break during which Councillor L Buchanan left the meeting and did not return.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

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

Katherine Pimblott (agent).

RESOLVED:

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

1.            Standard Time

1.            Approved plans

2.            External Materials

3.            Surfacing materials

4.            Full revised Landscape Scheme (hard and soft landscaping details) – prior to commencement

5.            Landscape Implementation

6.            Levels Plan (Trees / Landscape / Floodrisk)

7.            Boundary Treatment

8.            Updated Tree Protection scheme and AMS – prior to commencement

9.            Biodiversity enhancement features

10.         Safeguard Nesting Birds

11.         Lighting strategy – prior to occupation

12.         Details of secure and covered cycle parking – prior to occupation

13.         Drainage Scheme – prior to commencement

14.         Detailed strategy/design limiting the surface water runoff  generated by the proposal, and associated management /maintenance plan - required prior to commencement

15.         Foul and surface water to be drained separately

16.         Contaminated Land – Phase II report and remediation scheme

17.         Contaminated Land – verification report to be submitted

18.         Contaminate land – Soil Importation

19.         Contaminate land - Unexpected Contamination

20.         Prior to occupation – EVI

21.         Prior to occupation – Low emission boilers

22.         Removal of PD

23.         Construction Management Plan

24.         Full details of balcony – including some obscurity to the southern side

25.         POS management and maintenance plan

26.         10% of energy needs to be from renewable or low carbon energy

In order to give proper effect to the Southern Committee`s intent and without changing the substance of its decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation) 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.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

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

Councillor Hazel Faddes (ward councillor) and Jordan Clark (agent).

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          it is considered that the harm to the open countryside is not outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development, given its cramped form of the layout and design. The proposed development is deemed to be contrary to Policies PG6, SE1, SC3, SD1 and SD 2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, GEN1, HOU13 and ENV5 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the NPPF.

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

Should the application be subject to an appeal, the following Heads of Terms should be secured as part of any S106 Agreement:

This decision was contrary to the recommendation in the report.

The meeting adjourned for 30 minutes during which Councillors J Bird and A Burton left the meeting and did not return.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

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

Martin Butterworth (3 minutes).

RESOLVED:

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

1.         Standard

2.         Approved plans

3.         Materials as submitted

4.         Submission of landscaping scheme

5.         Landscape implementation

6.         Submission of boundary treatments

7.         Removal of PD rights (Part 1 Classes A, B, C and E)

8.         Provision of  8m buffer zone at top of Valley Brook

9.         Provision of EV charging points

10.      Proposed extension to 179 Alton Street to be completed prior to first occupation of proposed dwellings

11.      No removal of vegetation between 1^st March and 31^st August

12.      Implementation of ecological enhancement measures as submitted

13.      Adherence to submitted lighting scheme

14.      Finished floor levels

15.      Drainage in accordance with submitted details

16.      Submission of sustainable drainage management plan

17.      Contaminated land - Submission and approval of updated Phase II ground investigation and risk assessment

18.      Contaminated land submission and approval a Verification Report

19.      Contaminated land – soil testing

20.      Measures to deal with unexpected contamination

21.       Submission of a Construction Management Plan

22.       Construction Hours limited to 08:00-18:00 Mon-Fr; 09:00-14:00 Saturday; and Nil on Sundays/Bank Holidays

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, 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 planning application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.            The proposed development is not an appropriate form of development in the open countryside as per Policy PG6 nor does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in this policy and thus constitutes an unwarranted form of development in the open countryside. This would result in an urban encroachment into the open countryside which would harm the character and appearance of the area and the landscape. The proposal does not justify this open countryside location and is not considered to be sited in the right location. The proposal has not been supported by sufficient information regarding the agricultural land grading and no justification has been provided for the loss agricultural land or evidence provided of any overriding need for employment land to warrant its loss. The proposal is contrary to Policies PG1 (Overall Development Strategy) PG2 (Settlement Hierarchy), PG6 (Open Countryside), PG2 (Settlement Hierarchy), PG7 (Spatial Distribution), SD1 (Sustainable Development in Cheshire East) and SD2 (Sustainable Development Principles), SE2 (Efficient Use of Land), EG1 (Economic Prosperity), EG2 (Rural Economy), EG3 (Existing and Allocated Employment Sites) of the CELPS & RUR10 of the SADPD and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure development is directed to the right location and open countryside is protected from inappropriate development and maintained for future generations enjoyment and use. As such it creates harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

Should the application be subject to an appeal, the following Heads of Terms should be secured as part of any S106 Agreement:

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 has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Southern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

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

Dan Bowden (agent).

RESOLVED:

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

1.         Approved Plans

2.         Materials as Application

3.         Ecological Enhancement

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, 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 planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

RESOLVED:

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

1.         Accordance with approved plans

2.         Materials as per application

3.         Air Quality – specification of ultra-low emissions boilers to be submitted.

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 had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Southern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

RESOLVED:

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

1.         Accordance with approved plans

2.         Materials as per application.

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 had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Southern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.