Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Brown and J Macrae.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 18/2104M and 18/2996M, Councillor P Groves declared that he was acquainted with the applicant.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 18/2104M and 18/2996M, Councillor S Edgar declared that he was acquainted with the applicant.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 18/2104M and 18/2996M, Councillor G Merry declared that she had received an email asking for the applications to be withdrawn.

In respect of application 18/2522C, Councillor M Deakin declared that he had pre determined the application.  He stated that he would exercise his right to speak as Ward Councillor under the public speaking item and then would leave the room.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 18/2522C, Councillor D Hough declared that he had discussed the site during the Local Plan process and had sent correspondence to the Planning Officer with some comments on the report, however he had not fettered his discretion and had copied the Planning Lawyer into the email.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 18/1369N, Councillor B Roberts declared that he was a Member of Crewe Town Council, however he had not attended any planning meetings of the Town Council in respect of the application.

It was noted that the majority of Members had received correspondence in respect of application 18/2522C.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2018 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2018 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 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 R Fletcher, the Ward Councillor, Councillor M Deakin, the Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Sue Helliwell, representing Alsager Town Council, Sarah Anderson, representing the Alsager Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, an objector, Sylvia Dyke, an objector, Michael Unett, an objector and Chris Argent, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development by reason of its layout and massing does not allow sufficient space for landscaping to mitigate the adverse impacts of the development, or ensure a design solution which achieves a sense of place by protecting and enhancing the quality, distinctiveness and character of Alsager. As a result the proposed development is contrary to Policies SE 1 (Design), SE 4 (The Landscape) and LPS 25 (Radway Green North, Alsager) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and the NPPF.

(This decision was contrary to the Officers recommendation of approval.  The meeting adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor S Hogben, the Ward Councillor and Nick Bone, representing the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report and in the written and verbal update to the Board, the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Standard

2.         Approved plans

3.         Details of all facing and roofing materials and glazed elements

4.         Public art scheme for the building

5.         Building recording (level 2)

6.         Details of lift tower (Royal Hotel)

7.         Details of public realm treatments at the entrances to building

8.         Contaminated land – submission of a remediation strategy

9.         Contaminated land – submission of a verification report

10.       Contaminated land – works to stop if further unknown contaminated

land is uncovered

11.       Electric Vehicle Charging Provision

12.       Lighting scheme to be submitted and approved

13.       Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

14.       Protection of Nesting birds

15.       Details of Surface water drainage

16.       Construction Management Plan

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

(The meeting adjourned for lunch from 1.15pm until 1.45pm).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Mr Wallace, an objector and Mr Need, the applicant 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, the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Standard Time

2.         Plans

3.         Materials as stated

4.         Landscaping plan

5.         Landscaping to include levels

6.         Landscaping Implementation

7.         Great crested newt RAMs

8.         Breeding birds

9.         Arboricultural works as Statement

10.       Submission of details of nets to the north of the site

11.       If use seizes, the building shall be removed and the land returned to agriculture

12.       Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure

13.       Soil importation

14.       Unexpected Contamination

15.       Lighting scheme to be implemented as submitted

16.       Hours of operation

17.       Submission of a Construction Management Plan

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

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Mr Burns, representing the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1.         The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to policy PG3 of the CELPS.

2.         The proposed residential mix does not accord with the objective of the KNP, which identifies the need for new housing which meets the need of smaller families, single people, and the elderly.  The more dominant open market units in this scheme are the larger 4 and 5 bed house types, which is contrary to policy H1 of the draft KNP, and subsequently policy SE4 of the CELPS.

3.         Assessment of the proposals against the CEC Design Guide and Building for Life 12 indicates that there are issues in several fundamental areas.  As a consequence, the proposal is not considered to be good enough to approve.  The proposal is contrary to policies SD2 and SE1 of the CELPS, and the CEC Design Guide.

4.         A landscape character assessment required by policy LPS 37 has not been submitted.  This is required, not only to guide the scale and massing of new development, ensuring that it is acceptable in surrounding landscape, but also to ensure a high quality design which reflects and respects the character of the area, built form and surrounding landscape.  The submission is therefore contrary to policy LPS 37.

5.         A heritage impact assessment has not been submitted to consider the impact upon the adjacent designated heritage asset, the Grade II* Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden, and as such the proposal is contrary to paragraph 189 of Framework and policy SE7 of CELPS.

6.         Inadequate landscape detail has been provided.  The submission is therefore not in compliance with the requirements of the condition 7 of the outline permission, which sets out a range of detail that is required with the reserved matters submission, which has not been submitted.

7.         The scale of the dwellings on certain plots conflicts with plans approved under the outline consent 13/2935M.  The proposal is therefore not in compliance with condition 4 of the outline permission

8.         An affordable housing scheme that is required by the s106 to be submitted with the first reserved matters application has not been submitted.  Insufficient information has therefore been submitted to enable an assessment of compliance with policy SC5 of the CELPS.

9.         A landscape scheme (providing a detailed specification for the public open space) that is required by the s106 to be submitted at the same time as the first reserved matters application has not been submitted.  Insufficient information has therefore been submitted to enable an assessment of compliance with policy DC40 of the MBLP and policy SE6 of the CELPS.

10.       Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the full extent of the impact of the development upon trees or woodlands (including veteran trees), that provide a significant contribution to the amenity, biodiversity, landscape character or historic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Mr Henry Brooks, the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred for further discussions/amendments regarding the application.