Agenda and minutes

None.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 19/1392M, Councillor S Gardiner declared that he was the Ward Councillor for Knutsford and because the site had been subject to a number of discussions he was well known to Brian Chaplin, Terri Griffiths and Councillor Q Abel who were all speaking on the application as well as being known to a number of Knutsford Town Councillors.  He had not had any detailed discussions with any of the speakers and had come to the meeting with an open mind.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 19/1392M and 19/2539C Councillor S Hogben declared that he was a Director of ANSA who were consultees on the applications, however he had not made any comments nor the discussed the applications.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 19/0782C, Councillor M Hunter declared that he was the neighbouring Ward Councillor.

It was noted that all Members knew Councillors Q Abel and M Benson who were in attendance at the meeting and speaking on applications 19/1392M and 19/2539C.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2019 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the removal of the incomplete last sentence under Minute No 13 ‘Declarations of Interest/Pre Determination’ which was there in error and subject to the job title of Paul Hurdus under Minute No.14 being amended to read Highways Development Manager.

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.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To consider the above application.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To consider the above application.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Sian Hayle, representing the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That for the reasons set out in the report the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Standard timescales for implementation;

2.         Approved drawings;

3.         Scheme of aftercare submitted prior to completion of the works;

4.         All land to be restored in full and land subject to 5 years of aftercare;

5.         Scheme of tree, hedgerow and vegetation planting submitted prior to completion of the works;

6.         A detailed  access facilitation  tree pruning/felling specification prior to commencement of development;

7.         A detailed scheme of tree and hedge protection measures with a tree and hedge protection plan prior to commencement of development;

8.         An arboricultural method statement with key stage arboricultural supervision  prior to commencement of development;

9.         Implementation of ecological mitigation identified in ecological assessment and letter from FPCR prior to and throughout the proposed works;

10.       Scheme of measures to safeguard semi natural woodland, ponds, the river Wheelock and species rich grassland in close proximity to the proposed development during the construction phase submitted prior to the commencement of development;

11.       Protection of nesting birds throughout the development;

12.       Scheme of lighting prior to commencement of development;

13.       Retention of waterbodies throughout the development;

14.       Construction environmental management plan submitted prior to development commencing;

15.       Construction highways management plan submitted prior to development commencing;

16.       Hours of operation;

17.       Scheme for communication strategy submitted prior to development commencing;

18.       Implementation of improvements to visibility splay prior to development commencing;

19.       Measures to deal with unexpected contamination throughout the development.

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 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 Board’s decision.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor Q Abel, the Ward Councillor, Town Councillor J McCulloch, representing Knutsford Town Council, Brian Chaplin, an objector, Terri Griffiths, representing Knutsford’s Nether Ward Community Group, a supporter and John Copper, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred to allow officers to work with the applicant’s agents and other stakeholders (including the Nether ward Community Group and Knutsford Town Council) to address the concerns raised about the scheme, which are housing mix; affordable housing location; environmental/sustainability factors on the site along with  the policies in the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan and Design Guide.

(The meeting was adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor M Benson, the neighbouring Ward Councillor and Matthew Wedderburn, 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:-

1.         The proposed development would have a high trade impact. There are also concerns regarding the potential loss of linked trips associated with the trade impacts on the Waitrose and Aldi anchor stores in Sandbach Town Centre. The impact on Sandbach Town Centre as a whole would be significantly adverse and would outweigh the small improvement in consumer choice that the application scheme would deliver. The proposed development would be contrary to policy EG5 of the CELPS, HC2 of the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF.

2.         This is an important gateway location and prominent site in Sandbach. The commercial buildings are standard generic designs that pay little regard to Sandbach as a place and consequently the development will not suitably integrate and add to the overall quality to the area in architectural terms. Furthermore the topography of the site is not conductive to a large floorplate/car park format and would result substantial engineered retaining structures. The proposed development fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and is contrary to Policy SE1 of the CELPS, Policy H2 of the SNP and guidance contained within the NPPF.

3.         The commercial part of the development would be car dependent and Old Mill Road would act as a barrier between the application site and Sandbach Town Centre. Furthermore the development would not encourage linked trips and is not considered to be sustainable. The proposed development is contrary to Policies SD1, SD2, CO1 and CO2 of the CELPS, Policies GR9, GR10 and GR13 of the Congleton Local Plan and Policies H5 and JLE1 of the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan and guidance contained within the NPPF.

4.         The proposed development would affect PROW Nos 17, 18 and 19. The PROW would be diverted along estate roads or pavements (which is an extinguishment of the public right of way) or accommodated along narrow corridors at the rear of the retail development or residential properties affording no natural surveillance and the potential for anti-social behaviour. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy CO1 of the CELPS, Policy GR16 of the Congleton Local Plan, Policies PC5 and JLE1 of the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan and guidance contained within the NPPF.

5.         The application site is of a very challenging topography including an escarpment that runs along the central part of the site. The submitted information demonstrates that the development will require engineered retaining walls with minimal landscape mitigation along the western boundary, whilst there would also be minimal landscape mitigation along the eastern boundary with Condliffe Close and Palmer Road. On this basis the development would not achieve a sense of place and would be harmful to the character of the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.