Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M Houston and Councillor L Smetham.

Councillor F Wilson attended as a substitute for Councillor Houston.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, other registerable interests, and non-registerable interests in any item on the agenda and for Members to declare if they have a pre-determination in respect of any item on the agenda.

In the interest of openness and transparency, the following declarations were made;

In relation to application 25/2977/OUT, Councillor Puddicombe declared that he had received correspondence from a local resident, however, had not discussed the application with them.

In relation to application 25/2977OUT, Councillor Gardiner declared that knew Mr Carter (Applicant’s Legal Advisor) in a professional capacity, however had had no communication regarding this application.

In relation to applications 25/1448/OUT and 25/1469/FUL, Councillor Gardiner declared that he knew the Agent and those speaking in objection on the applications in a professional capacity, however had not been in contact regarding these applications. In addition Cllr Gardiner was a member of Knutsford Town Council who had commented on the applications, but he had not been party to the comments made.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2026 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2026 be approved as a correct record, subject to the following amendment;

Minute 55

Application 25/2977/OUT

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

REASONS: Due to concerns around highway safety, Members requested that a further Traffic Assessment be undertake by Cheshire East Council to identify any cumulative impact resulting from all known applications in the locality and assess impact on the local highway network.

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 Strategic Planning Board

·         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 Strategic Planning Board 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 made representations in relation to the application;

Councillor Geoff Smith (Ward Councillor)

Councillor Jo Hillman (Stapeley & District Parish Council)

Mr Docker (Objector)

Mr Cullen (Objector)

Mr Lane (Agent)

Members noted the content of the update report.

RESOLVED:

That application 25/2977/OUT be DEFERRED to enable Cheshire East Council to undertake a cumulative impact assessment of this application and other known development proposals on the local highway network.  

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and made representations in relation to the application;

Mrs Jamison (Objector)

Mr Finnan (Objector)

Mr Pittey (Supporter)

Mr Halman (Agent)

Members noted the content of two update reports.

RESOLVED:

That application 25/1468/OUT be DEFERRED for the following reasons;

-       To enable the number of units to be agreed with the applicant

-       To enable clarification of public rights of way routes and highway matters given the site is accessed via private land

-       To provided a detailed list of proposed conditions.

To consider the above application.

RESOLVED:

This application was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning given the relationship to the previous deferred application.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and made representations in relation to the application;

Councillor J Snowball (Ward Councillor)

RESOLVED:

That application 25/1729/FUL be REFUSED as detailed in the Officer’s report for the following reasons;

1. The proposed equestrian development would not preserve openness and as such it would involve an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. There are no very special circumstances which would clearly outweigh this harm. The application therefore conflicts with Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy policy PG 3, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document policy RUR 7, and the provisions of Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the character of the site within its countryside setting. The proposal would introduce new and substantial built form and urbanising ancillary paraphernalia eroding the open rural character of this area, contrary to Cheshire East Local Plan policies SD 2, SE 1, SE 3 and SE 4; Site Allocation and Development Policies Document policies GEN 1, ENV 3 and ENV 5; and Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework which recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

3. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application relating to Great Crested Newts, which are a protected species. The Council is unable to assess adequately the impact of the proposed development, having regard to the close proximity of a number of ponds. In the absence of this information, it has not been possible to demonstrate that the proposal would comply with Cheshire East Local Plan policy SE 3; Site Allocation and Development Policies Document policy ENV 2; or the provisions of Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application relating to the development impact on existing high value mature trees. The Council is unable to assess adequately the impact of the proposed development, having regard to the close proximity of the stables to identified trees. In the absence of this information, it has not been possible to demonstrate that the proposal would comply with Cheshire East Local Plan policy SE 5; Site Allocation and Development Policies Document policy ENV 6; or the provisions of Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 Strategic Planning Board, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

Members noted the content of the update report.

RESOLVED:

That application 24/1261M be REFUSED as detailed in the Officer’s report for the following reasons;

1.    The proposed large scale equestrian facility would not preserve openness and as such it would involve an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. It would also fail to preserve openness and would cause additional harm by way of encroachment into the countryside. There are no very special circumstances which would clearly outweigh this harm. The application therefore conflicts with Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy policy PG 3, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document policy RUR 7, and the provisions of Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposal would have an adverse effect on the character of the site within its countryside setting. The proposal would introduce new and substantial built form and urbanising ancillary paraphernalia eroding the open rural character of this area, contrary to Cheshire East Local Plan policies SD 2, SE 1, SE 3 and SE 4; Site Allocation and Development Policies Document policies GEN 1, ENV 3 and ENV 5; and Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework which recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

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 Strategic Planning Board, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and made representations in relation to the application;

Mr P Grant (Agent)

RESOLVED:

That application 25/3772/VOC be APPROVED as detailed in the Officer’s report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Variation to the S106 Agreement of 23/0539N, and the following conditions;

FULL

1. Commencement of development before 13th May 2028

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

3. Mix of employment uses (Uses Classes) and restriction on floorspace

4. Details of materials and finishes

5. Details of Hard Surfacing

6. Submission of details of landscaping scheme

7. Implementation of landscaping scheme

8. Submission of Landscape Management Plan

9. Details for provision of vertical standalone landscape feature alongside boundary with the West Coast Mainline

10. Details of Boundary treatments

11. implementation in accordance with approved Arboricultural Method Statement

12. implementation in accordance with the approved tree protection scheme

13 Implementation in accordance with the approved details for the service and foul and surface water drainage layout

14 Submission of detailed design of outfalls to Basford Brook informed by the submitted illustrative proposals

15. Development to be undertaken in accordance with CEMP prepared by TEP (ref: 7648.029 Version 3.0) dated June 2025) to safeguard the Mere Gutter and Basford Brook LWS

16. Implementation of development in accordance with the details of the approved surface water drainage scheme

17 Development to proceed in accordance with the submitted White Clawed Crayfish Mitigation Strategy prepared by TEP dated February 2024

18. Development to be undertaken with approved Amphibian Reasonable Avoidance Measures detailed by the Construction Environmental Management Plan prepared by TEP (Document ref: 7648.029 Version 3.0) dated June 2025 19. Reptile mitigation to be implemented in accordance paragraphs 7.66 – 7.68 of the submitted ES addendum dated February 2024

20. Implementation of mitigation and enhancement measures set out by the Ecological Enhancement Plan prepared by TEP (Document Ref :7648.028 Date: September 2024 Version: 1.0)

21. Implementation of amphibian friendly drainage provided within the submitted Ecological Enhancement Plan prepared by TEP (Document Ref:7648.028Date: September 2024 Version: 1.0)

22. Safeguarding of nesting birds.

23. Entry into Natural England’s District Level licencing scheme prior to commencement of works on site

24 Submission of updated badger survey prior to commencement of development

25. Detailed lighting scheme (bat friendly) to be submitted prior to commencement

26. Habitat be provided and managed in accordance with the Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan prepared by TEP (Document Ref: 7648.02.001 Version 2 dated June 2025)

27. Implementation of the development in accordance with the detailed surface water drainage design and SuDS

28. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment and mitigation measures detailed

29. Details of foul water drainage scheme

30. Provision of a ghost right turn lane on the existing spine road Implementation of scheme for the full signalisation of the David Whitby Way/A500 roundabout

31. No occupation of Unit 2 (Phase 1) until access available for use

32.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.