Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J Macrae.

It was noted that Members had received correspondence in respect of applications 17/3605W and 18/3672M.

In the interest of openness in respect of applications 18/4892C and 18/3672M, Councillor S Hogben declared that he was a Director of ANSA who had been a consultee, however he had not made any comments nor discussed the applications.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/3605W, Councillor B Roberts declared that through a homelessness charity he was an acquaintance of one of the people representing Cranage Parish Council present at the meeting.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 18/4892C, Councillor B Roberts declared he used to work with the applicant, Colin Muller a number of years ago.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 18/4892C, Councillor G Merry declared that whilst she was a member of Sandbach Town Council she was not on the Town Council’s Planning Committee and had not discussed the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 18/3672M, Councillor G Merry declared that she had received an email from the local MP.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2019 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2019 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 A Kolker, the Ward Councillor, Parish Councillor Mike Cohen, representing Cranage Parish Council, Pamela Garnett, an objector and Mike Hurley, representing the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That subject to the Secretary of State deciding not to ‘call-in’ the application under the Departure from the Development Plan procedures, the application for the reasons set out in the report be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Commencement & notification

2.         Approved plans

3.         Cessation of mineral working and restoration within 15 years of commencement.

4.         Hours of working

5.         Access

6.         Soils handling

7.         Depth of extraction

8.         Phased working

9.         Advance Landscape works and planting

10.       Annual progress and review meeting and report

11.       Electromagnetic interference mitigation

12.       Electromagnetic compatibility monitoring

13.       Noise limits

14.       Noise management plan

15.       Dust management plan

16.       Archaeological mitigation strategy

17.       Environmental protection scheme

18.       Pollution prevention measures

19.       Contaminated land scheme

20.       Unexpected contamination

21.       Lighting scheme

22.       Surface water management plan

23.       Drainage scheme

24.       Drainage monitoring

25.       Stability monitoring

26.       Additional boreholes for stability monitoring

27.       Protection of trees/vegetation

28.       Plant and machinery

29.       Site maintenance and emergency repairs

30.       Progressive species surveys and mitigation proposals.

31.       Groundwater monitoring and mitigation

32.       Storage of materials harmful to water quality

33.       Liaison Committee

34.       Provision of footpaths

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) 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.

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 S106 Town and Country Planning Act to secure the Heads of Terms for a S106 Agreement.

(The meeting adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor S Corcoran, the Ward Councillor and Matthew Wedderburn, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application.  In addition a statement was read out on behalf of Councillor B Moran, a neighbouring Ward Councillor).

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 level of information provided to demonstrate the appearance and design impact of the site engineering is inadequate. The commercial buildings are all standard designs that pay little regard to Sandbach as a place and consequently the development will not suitably integrate and add to the overall quality of the area in architectural terms. 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 insufficient information has been submitted with this application to show how the proposed development would be served by public transport and how the site would be linked to Sandbach Town Centre and thereby encouraging linked trips. 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 Local Planning Authority considers that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the site could accommodate the number of dwellings proposed together with the required level of Open Space/Green Infrastructure/Children’s play space. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policy SE6 of the CELPS, Policy GR22 of the Congleton Local Plan and guidance contained within the NPPF.

6.         The application site is of a very challenging topography  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor T Dean, the Ward Councillor, Debbie Jamison, an objector, Brian Chaplin, representing the five Knutsford Community Groups, supporting and Sebastian Tibenham, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That, except for the Public House (Use Class A4) and Hotel (Use Class C1), for the reasons set out in the report and in the written update to the Board, the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing the following:-

And subject to the following conditions:-

1.         Standard contaminated land condition

2.         Importation of soil

3.         Unexpected contamination

4.         Time period to implement permission

5.         Approve reserved matters details

6.         Plans

7.         details of surface water drainage

8.         Submission and implementation of Travel Plan

9.         submit arboricultural impact assessment

10.       levels

11.       submission of design code

12.       Construction environment management plan

13.       Wildlife lighting scheme

14.       Ecological enhancement strategy

15.       Landscape and habitat management plan

16.       boundary details

17.       Provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points

18.       Noise Impact Assessment,

19.       implement landscaping scheme

20.       The development hereby approved shall include a total of no more than 275 residential dwellings (Use Class C2 and C3) of which no more than 250 shall fall within C3 Use Class.  C2 units to no more than 50

21.       details of materials

22.       details of play area

23.       retention of hedgerows

24.       submission of heritage impact assessment.

25.       broadband

26.       Details and implementation of cycle way and footpath

27.       The proposed local centre/parade of shops hereby approved shall comprise of no more than 1,000 sq m gross of A1 retail floorspace. No individual retail unit shall be more than 450 sq m gross. The convenience goods floorspace in any one retail unit should not exceed 280 sq m net.

28.       Restriction in D1 uses and floor space

29.       Submit updated bat  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to above report.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

(The following item was considered after Minute No.96).

To consider a report on hand car washes and valets in Cheshire East.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(John Wheeler attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the report).

RESOLVED

That the Housing, Planning and Regeneration Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the production and use of a Supplementary Planning Document on hand car washes, following the outline attached at Appendix 2.

(Councillor H Davenport left the meeting and did not return).

To consider a report on the Planning Appeals.

Consideration was given to the above report.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.