Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Edwardes. Councillor Craig Browne attended as substitute.

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 the following declarations were made:

Councillor Gardiner read out the following statement in relation to 21/3100M:

“It has been suggest that my position on this Board has been fettered by my previous actions as a member of this Council, as a member of Knutsford Town Council and through associations relating to my previous appointment.

I was a Member of Knutsford Town Council (and then Chair of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee) which KTC recommended to Cheshire East that in the event that additional sites were required to meet the Local Plan’s assessed needs, then this site should be allocated in the Cheshire East Local Plan. This situation came about when the Local Plan Inspector instructed Cheshire East to identify further sites in the north of the Borough (including Knutsford) to bring the total number of homes for Knutsford nearer to 1000 than the 600 proposed.

This was one of several sites on the outskirts of the Town which was under consideration. However, the Local Plan Inspector independently agreed this was the site which should be allocated.

I was a member of Cheshire East Council at the time the Local Plan was put forward for adoption and voted for its adoption. However, the Local Plan was adopted several years ago and the site’s allocation within the Local Plan is now a matter of fact and a material consideration which I am required to consider when determining whether this application should be refused or allowed. As such I consider that my previous comments and voting record no more fetter’s my position today than any other member of this Board.

Additionally, I was previously in the employ of Emery Planning, the agents for the application and I work directly with Mr Coxon at that time. I ceased working for Emery Planning in 2010 and although my paths continue to cross with Mr Coxon and other former colleagues, these meetings are increasingly rare these days and I don’t recall seeing Mr Coxon for at least 4 years. I have not engaged with Mr Coxon or any of his colleagues I may have bumped into in the meantime regarding this application.

The last occasion I recall seeing Mr Coxon was when I attended a pre-submission briefing session about this site hosted by officers of Knutsford Town Council and attended by the Town Clerk, Mr Coxon, and most members of the Town Council in post at that time.

It is part of the planning process of major applications for applicants to hold formal briefings with Town and Parish Councils in advance of formally submitting their application. At that meeting I did make several observations about concerns I had with the draft proposal.

Furthermore I am known to Mrs Jamison as a resident of Knutsford, as a spokesperson for KROW, a regular attendee at Town Council meetings and a lead-member of one of the working groups collecting data, informing debate and drafting policies for the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan, as previously mentioned I  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2023 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2023 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

The public speaker procedure was noted.

In advance of the meeting the Chair had agreed the Local Community Groups would be allowed a period of up to 3 minutes each speaking time.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and spoke in relation to the application:

Peter Coan (Ward Councillor Councillor), Councillor James McCulloch (Knutsford Town Council), Debbie Jamison (Community Group “KROW”), John Finnan (Community Group “Save Longridge Greenbelt”), Jonathan Smith, Quentin Abel, Jeff Gazzard (objectors), and John Coxon (applicant).

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt as a result of the impact of the access arrangements upon its openness, also resulting in encroachment. The development would also result in additional harm with regards to ecology, particularly as a result of the impact upon the Longridge Local Wildlife Site as well as resulting in a loss of Protected Open Space. It is not deemed that Very Special Circumstances clearly outweigh the identified harm. The application is subsequently deemed contrary to policies PG3 (Green Belt), SE3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and LPS38 (Land South of Longridge, Knutsford) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, policies ENV2 (Ecological Implementation) and REC1 (Open Space Protection) of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, policies E3 (Habitat Protection and Biodiversity) and E4 (Local Green Space) of the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposed development would fail to deliver an effective integrated scheme due to the lack of visual and physical connections and accessibility with the existing development on Longridge. The development is subsequently deemed contrary to policies SD2 (Sustainable Development Principles) and SE1 (Design) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy,  policy GEN1 (Design principles) of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, policy D1 (The Knutsford Design Guide) of the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan, the Cheshire East Council Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document and 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.

Councillor Marshall left the meeting before consideration of the following item and did not return.

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and spoke in relation to the application:

Jonathan Burns (applicant)

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report:

1.    The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which by definition would be harmful. The very special circumstances put forward are not considered to outweigh this harm. In addition, there is considered to be landscape harm with no proposals to mitigate this. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to para’s 147-150 of the NPPF, Policies PG3 Green Belt & SE 4 The Landscape of the LPS, and Policy ENV 5 Landscaping of the SADPD.

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.