Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Hammond, M Sewart and L Smetham.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/6237M, Councillor G Merry declared that she along with the majority of Members had received correspondence from Emery Partnership.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/6237M, Councillor J Jackson declared that she was a Member of Macclesfield Town Council but had not taken part in any discussions.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/6237M, Councillor D Hough declared he had played for Macclesfield Rugby Club over 50 years ago, however he had never been a member of the club or had any financial link to it.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/6237M, Councillor S Hogben declared he was a Director of ANSA who were had been a consultee, however he had not made any comments or discussed the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 16/6237M, Councillor L Wardlaw declared that she was Portfolio Holder for Health which incorporated the play based strategy.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2017 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

RESOLVED

That the public speaking procedure be noted.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor P Findlow, the Ward Councillor, Councillor L Durham, the adjacent Ward Councillor, Parish Councillor Keith Podmore, representing Prestbury Parish Council, Town Councillor Beverley Dooley, representing Macclesfield Town Council, Sir Nicholas Winterton, a supporter and Rawdon Gascoigne, the agent for the applicant).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

1.         The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt. The proposed pavilion building would be materially larger than the building it replaces, the proposal will introduce a significant increase in hardstanding resulting in encroachment of built development and the housing proposal is an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt by definition. A case for very special circumstances has been put forward however this does not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and does not outweigh the other harm identified in terms of the under-provision of affordable housing provision as a result of the robust viability exercise, which weighs against the proposals in the planning balance. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan and saved policy GC1 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan.

2.         That power be delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation) to include a further refusal reason if the National Grid returned a consultation response objecting to the development.

In order to give proper effect to the Board’s intentions and without changing the substances of the decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation) in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence Vice Chairman) of the Strategic Planning Board to correct any technical slip or omission in the wording of the resolution, including wording of conditions and reasons, between approval of the minutes and issue of the decision notice. Should the application be subject to any appeal, the Heads of Terms as set out in the Section 106 part of the report should be secured as part of any S106 Agreement.

(The meeting adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That the Heads of Terms of the s106 legal agreement for: Outline planning permission for Residential development up to a maximum of 189 dwellings; local centre (Class A1 to A5 inclusive and D1) with maximum floor area of 1800sqm Gross Internal Area (GIA); employment development (B1b, B1c, B2 and B8) with a maximum floor area of 3,700sqm GIA; primary school; public open space including new village green, children's play area and allotments; green infrastructure including ecological area; new vehicle and pedestrian site access points and associated works and: New highway access road, including footways and cycleway and associated works, Land off Peter Destapeleigh Way, Nantwich be noted and approved as follows:-

            Application 12/3747N:

•           Affordable Housing – 30% (65% Rental/35% Intermediate tenure)

•           Education contribution – £532,253.00 (Towards Secondary (£441,253.00) and SEN Education (£91,000) but NO Primary contribution).

•           Highways contribution – £130,000 (Towards bus stops, pedestrian crossing and provision of a bus service for 3 years).

•           Public Open Space – To be agreed, laid out and managed by the applicant in perpetuity.

            Application 12/3746N:

•           LNCA – Landscape and Nature Conservation Area to include agreed works, maintenance and the land only to be used for these purposes.

Linking the two applications - The access shall be used as the sole point of access to the site considered under 12/3747N and no access to be taken from Audlem Road to the south.

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

(Councillor B Roberts, a Cheshire East Councillor attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the item).

RESOLVED

That the report be noted and that Members agree to the proposed approach to allow further consideration of this matter as part of the wider Validation Checklist review with a report to come back to a future meeting of the Board.