Agenda item

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor S Corcoran, the Ward Councillor, Councillor B Moran, a neighbouring Ward Councillor, Councillor Mrs G Merry, a neighbouring Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Mrs C Lowe, representing Sandbach Town Council, Steve Allan, Chairman of StopOldMillQuarter Campaign and Mr Twemlow, the Planning Agent representing Waitrose who were objecting attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report and in the Update to the Board, that the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1.The proposed development relates to an out-of-centre retail development which fails tosatisfy the sequential test and does not satisfy the retail impact test of the NPPF (Para’s 24 & 26) andPolicy S2 (Shopping and Commercial Development Outside Town Centres). The proposed development is not considered to be sustainabledevelopment and would have a significant adverse impact upon Sandbach in terms of the impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable development and contrary to the guidance contained within the NPPF and Policies S2 (Shopping and Commercial Development Outside Town Centres) of the Congleton Borough Local Plan FirstReview (2005) which seek to promote competitive town centre environments.

2.The proposed access and improvements at the Old Mill Roundabout and the junction of The Hill/High Street/Old Mill Road would not mitigate the impact of the proposed development which is reliant on carborne trade. The development would result in increased congestion at these junctions which are already at capacity. As a result the transport impact of the development would be severe and the development is not considered to be sustainable development. The proposal is contrary to the NPPF and Policies GR9 (Accessibility, Servicing and Parking Provision) and GR18 (Traffic Generation) of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review (2005) which seek to maximise sustainable transport solutions.

3.Part of the application site is located within the Sandbach Wildlife Corridor and the proposed development would result in a significant loss of habitat within the wildlife corridor. The proposed development does not include any details mitigation to off-set this impact and as a result, the proposed development does not conserve and enhance biodiversity. Therefore the proposal would not be sustainable and would be contrary to the NPPF and Policy NR4 (Non-statutory sites) of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review (2005).

4.The Local Planning Authority considers that insufficient information has been submitted with this application in relation to the impact upon air quality, noise and odour. Without these assessments it is not possible to fully assess the impact of the development upon surrounding residential properties and as a result there is a potential detrimental impact upon residential amenity. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the NPPF and Policies GR1 (New Development) and GR6 (Amenity and Health) of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review (2005) which seek to contribute to conserve and enhance the natural environment and reduce pollution and protect residential amenity.

5.The proposed development is an inappropriate form of development within the open countryside. The development would not preserve the openness of the countryside and maintain or enhance its local character. Therefore the proposal would not be sustainable development and would be contrary to the provisions of Policies PS3 and PS8 of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review and the NPPF which states that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

6.The proposed development would involve the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. As the proposed development is not necessary it would not represent sustainable development as it would result in the loss of a finite resource. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 112 of 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 Development Management and Building Control has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Board, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(During consideration of the application, Councillor P Hoyland arrived to the meeting, however he did not take part in the debate or vote on the application).