Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P Groves, J Hammond, J Macrae and L Wardlaw.

It was noted that Members had received correspondence in respect of applications 18/2153N and 17/6486M.

Councillor E Brooks declared that she had pre determined application 18/2153N and in accordance with the Code of Conduct she left the meeting prior to consideration of the application and returned once a decision had been made.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2018 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor D Hough requested that the comment he made in relation to application 17/10984C at the previous meeting be formally recorded.  His comment was as follows:-

‘That he be assured that the conditions of the outline application in relation to application 17/10984C would still apply’.  Officers confirmed that this was the case.

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 J Clowes, the Ward Councillor, Parish Councillor Paul Moore, Chairman of Doddington & District Parish Council, Parish Councillor Bob Frodsham, representing Doddington & District Parish Council, Parish Councillor Chris Knibbs, Chairman of Hatherton & Walgherton Parish Council,

Andrew Thomson, Planning Consultant representing the Wybunbury Ward Combined Parishes Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, Objector, Adrian Butler, Chairman of ‘STAND’ Resident’s Group, Objector and Chris Clayton, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

1.         It is considered that, the positive planning benefits for the conservation of the heritage assets does not outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposed residential development in the open countryside and by the lack of social/community benefits to be provided by the development.  This will result in an unsustainable form of development that is contrary to policies PG6 Open Countryside, SC5 Affordable Housing, and IN2 Development Contributions of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, RES.5 of the Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

In order to give proper effect to the Strategic Planning 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.

Should this application be the subject of an appeal, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning (Regulation) in consultation with the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Board to enter into a planning agreement in accordance with the S111 of the Local Government Act 1972.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.  The meeting adjourned for a 5 minute break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor T Dean, the Ward Councillor, Mr Green, an objector, Mr Brooks, an objector and Marc Hourigan, the agent for 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 completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing the following:-

•           A financial contribution of £586,222 for highways improvements to Brook Street / Hollow Lane junction and Adams Hill / Toft Road junction.

And subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Commencement of development (3 years)

2.         Development in accord with approved plans

3.         Materials as application

4.         Landscaping - submission of details

5.         Landscaping (implementation)

6.         Tree protection

7.         Development to be carried out in accordance with ecological mitigation strategy relating to GCN, Birkin Brook and badgers

8.         Breeding birds survey to be submitted

9.         Ecological enhancement strategy to be submitted

10.       Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

11.       Drainage details to be submitted

12.       Development to be carried out in accordance with submitted FRA

13.       Noise mitigation to be implemented

14.       Piling / floor floating details to be submitted

15.       Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted

16.       Electric Vehicle Infrastructure to be provided

17.       Implementation of travel plan

18.       Remediation strategy to be submitted

19.       Verification report to be submitted

20.       Imported soil to be tested for contamination

21.       Unforeseen contamination

22.       Details of cycle stores to be submitted

23.       Roundabout at Mobberley Road / Parkgate Lane junction be provided

24.       Details of retaining wall to eastern boundary to be submitted

25.       Parking spaces to be provided and retained

26.       At least 10% of predicted energy requirements to be secured from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources

27.       Only B1(c) (Light Industry), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and distribution) uses permitted

28.       Area of land to the south west of the site to be retained for potential            future access route

29.       Existing and proposed levels to be submitted

30.       Shower and changing facilities to be provided

31.       Parking improvements to Haig Road

(The meeting adjourned for lunch from 12.30pm until 1.15pm).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Phillip Jones, 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 seeks to provide a car showroom on an employment site, which is protected for B1, B2 and B8 uses.  It has not been demonstrated that the premises are causing significant nuisance or environmental problems and it has not been demonstrated that the site is no longer suitable or viable for employment use.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy E1 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and policy EG3 of Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy.

2.         The proposal results in the loss of open space.  No assessment to show the open space to be surplus to requirements has been submitted, and the loss is not replaced by equivalent or better provision.   The proposal is therefore contrary to policies RT1 and RT6 of the MBLP.

3.         The site has a verdant character which has value in visual, ecological and arboricultural terms, and the proposed development does not adequately reflect this established character, and in this context does not make a positive contribution to the immediate surroundings.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SE1 and SD2 of the CELPS and policies H8 and H11 of the HNP.

4.         The proposal results in less than substantial harm to the setting of a grade II* listed building, which is not sufficiently justified.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SE7 of the CELPS.

5.         No arboricultural information has been submitted with the application.  However, it is anticipated that there will be a significant net loss of woodland cover on the site.  The design provides no scope for compensation or mitigation to offset this loss.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SE5 of the CELPS, DC9 of the MBLP and H9 of the HNP.

6.         a)         The proposal results in the loss of habitats of sufficient value to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site, and the compensation proposals are inadequate to address the loss of this habitat.

            b)         The woodland on western side of the site has been identified by the submitted NVC survey as being ‘W6’ woodland.  This is considered to be a Priority Habitat Type. Policy SE3 states that development which is likely to have a significant adverse impact on such a designation will not be permitted except where the reasons for or benefits of the proposed development outweigh the impact of the development. 

            c)         The submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has identified trees with bat roost potential in the woodland on the western edge of the site. The woodland is not shown to be retained as part of the proposed development, and no survey has been carried out to determine the presence /absence of roosting bats.  Therefore there is insufficient information to fully assess the impact upon this protected species.

            d)         The submitted ecological assessment has not considered the potential impacts of the proposed development upon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Mr Davidson an objector and Steve Hughes, the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred for further consideration to be given to the design and layout of the application.

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Board'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 (Regulation) 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 report.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.