Agenda item

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor R Fletcher, the Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Mrs S Jones, representing Alsager Town Council, Honorary Alderman Derek Bould, President of Alsager Residents Action Group and Adrian Girvin, an objector attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report and in the update to Board, the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1.     The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside partly on Grade 2 Agricultural Land, contrary to Policies PS8 and H6 of the Congleton Borough Adopted Local Plan First Review 2005 and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and would create harm to the interest of acknowledged importance. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land supply in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and as such the application is also premature to the emerging Development Strategy. Consequently, there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.

2.  The proposed development does not provide any mitigation for the junction of Sandbach Road North/Crewe Road which would operate in excess of capacity as a result of the proposed development and the Transport Assessment does not include an assessment of the impact of the Twyfords development which has a resolution to approve subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement. Furthermore there has been no assessment of the interaction between the junctions of Chancery Lane/Hassall Road and Hassall Road/Crewe Road. The development would result in increased congestion at these junctions and 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.  Insufficient survey information has been submitted in relation to a number of protected species (Great Crested Newts, Bats and Reptiles) and as a result it is not possible to determine the potential impact upon these species which are known to be present in the area. Without this information to give details of the impact and any necessary mitigation, 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.  Part of the application site has a history of landfill use and as a result the land has the potential to be contaminated and there may be ground gas being generated on this site. No Phase II Site Investigation or Gas Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application and as a result it is not possible to determine whether there will be an adverse effect from pollution on the health of the future occupiers of the proposed development. The development is therefore contrary to Paragraph 120 of the NPPF and Policies GR6 and GR7 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review (2005).

5.  Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to determine if the proposal would involve the removal of an “important” hedgerow as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Policy NR3 of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review, states that proposals for development that would result in the loss or damage to important hedgerows will only be allowed if there are overriding reasons for allowing the development. Therefore contrary to Policy NR3 of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review and guidance contained within the NPPF.

6.       The proposed development would result in a harmful encroachment into the open countryside. The development would adversely impact upon the landscape character and does not respect or enhance the landscape when viewed from the local footpath network and the Salt Line Way. Therefore the proposed development is contrary to Policies GR1 and GR5 of the adopted Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review and guidance contained within the NPPF.

In addition it was requested that an informative be added on to include the following wording:-

The view of the Strategic Planning Board on 13th March 2013 is that any revised application or appeal shall be supported by a Road Safety Audit of Sandbach Road North to the north of the proposed access point. This is to ensure that the route would be safe for all road users.

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.

Should this application be the subject of an appeal, authority be delegated to the Development Management and Building Control Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Board to enter into a planning agreement in accordance with the S106 Town and Country Planning Act to secure the Heads of Terms for a S106 Agreement as detailed in the update report.