Agenda and minutes

None.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests and for Members to declare if they have a pre-determination in respect of any item on the agenda.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/3208M, Councillor C Browne declared that was a was formerly a member of the Energi Fitness Club over two years ago, however it did not affect his thinking in respect of the item.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/4952M, Councillor C Browne declared that although he was the Ward Councillor and had called the item in, he was pre disposed rather then pre determined on the item.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/3208M, Councillor S Gardiner declared that he knew Town Councillor Dodson socially who was speaking on the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/3208M, Councillor E Brooks declared that she used to be a member of Energie Fitness Club and she lives near the facilities where the gym was located and she was also a regular user of Lidl.  In addition she also knew Town Councillor Dodson speaking on the application.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/3208M, Councillor H Gaddum declared that she had received items of correspondence in respect of the application.  It was noted that other Members may have received the same correspondence as well.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 17/4862M, councillor J P Findlow declared that he would address the Committee as the Ward Councillor under the public speaking procedure.

It was noted that a number of Members on the Committee knew Parish Councillor T Jackson who was a former Member of Cheshire East Council and who was down to speak in respect of application 17/4862M.  It was also noted that Members knew the  two Ward Councillors speaking in respect of two of the applications on the agenda.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2017 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2107 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 Planning Committee

·         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 planning committee 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 B Burkhill, the Ward Councillor, Town Councillor Christopher Dodson, representing Wilmslow Town Council, Richard Armstead, an objector, Adrian Lea, a Supporter and Stuart Jardine, the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred for the following reasons:-

-           Transport and highway implications

-           Sequential assessment

-           Liaison with public health department. Re: loss of gym

-           Air quality

-           Swimming pool data

(The meeting adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor J Nicholas, the Ward Councillor and Paul Mouat, an objector attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be delegated to Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee and relevant Ward Member, for approval subject to a tree design mast and additional landscaping/barrier planting to the listed building aspect of the mast being secured and subject to the following conditions:-

(1)  Time 3 years

(2)  Approved plans

(3)  Materials as per application

(4)  Breeding bird survey to be submitted

(5)  Removal of existing mast

(During consideration of the application, Councillor E Brooks left the meeting and did not return.  The meeting adjourned for lunch from 12.40pm until 1.15pm).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.  It was noted that the description of the proposal should have Erection of 29 residential dwellings and not 32.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

Despite meeting highways standards, the proposal provides inadequate access to secure the safety of pedestrians and vehicle users particularly when access is required by larger vehicles, fire engines etc.

An informative was requested to state that if alternative access arrangements could be found there would be no objection to the development.

In order to give proper effect to the Committee’s intentions and without changing the substances of the decision, authority is delegated to the Planning & Enforcement Manager in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence Vice Chairman) of the Northern Planning Committee to correct any technical slip or omission in the wording of the resolution, including wording of conditions and reasons, between approval of the minutes and issue of the decision notice.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor J P Findlow, the Ward Councillor, Ian Bright, an objector and Gary Earnshaw , 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:-

-           Detrimental to character of area due to over-development and over- intensification of use of the site.  The Committee were unhappy with going from detached dwellings to the semi-detached, due to the increased level of activity particularly vehicular activity and loss of landscaping at the front of the properties to accommodate the required parking in a cul-de-sac characterised by detached properties with large landscaped front gardens.  It was considered contrary to Local Plan policies and the Prestbury Village Design Statement.

It was also requested that a statement would be provided in the Council’s defence if the applicant went to Appeal.

In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to debate, 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 Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.  The meeting was adjourned for a short break.  Councillors H Gaddum and N Mannion left the meeting and did not return).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Darren Muir, 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:-

The proposal represents an over development and over intensification of use resulting in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, and lack of outdoor space.  The development is therefore contrary to guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework and policies DC3, DC41 and H6 of the updated Cheshire East Local Plan and would cause harm to the objectives of those policies.

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 Regulation has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(This decision was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval).