Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 21/2975M, Councillor K Parkinson declared that she had previously worked at the public house when it was opened and had frequented it on occasion and  knew the site well.  She had avoided discussing the planning application and left any meetings of the local parish council when the matter had been discussed and therefore she had not fettered her discretion.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 20/4737M, Councillor T Dean declared that the applicant was known to him.

In respect of application 21/3555M, Councillor J Smith declared that she had pre-determined the application and in accordance with the Code of Conduct would exercise her right to speak under the Public Speaking Protocol as Ward Councillor.  She then declared she would leave the room once she had spoken.

In the interest of openness in respect of application 20/4737M, Councillor D Jefferay declared that he knew one of the objectors, however he had not discussed the application with him and therefore not pre-determined the application.

It was noted that all Members had received either correspondence or telephone calls in respect of applications 20/4737M and 21/3555M.  Councillor D Jefferay also declared he had received correspondence in respect of application 21/2975M.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2021 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on ??be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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 D Stockton, the Ward Councillor, Town Councillor J Newall, representing Wilmslow Town Council, Roger Bagguley, an objector and

Lewis Evans, representing the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

The proximity, location and height of three of the closest homes contained in the proposed housing development and its associated landscaping within the wider setting would cause harm to the significance of the group of listed buildings adjacent.  The scheme therefore failed to meet the requirements of section 66 of the Act, the saved heritage policies of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan BE2, BE15, Policy SD 2, SE 1 and SE 7 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, Policy TH3 of the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan which in combination sought to secure appropriate design in a heritage context and also Section 16 of the NPPF requiring the provision of a clear and convincing justification in relation to harm.  The public benefit of the provision of three four to five bed houses outside of LPS56 did not outweigh identified harm to the heritage assets.

In order to give proper effect to the Committee`s intent and without changing the substance of its decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice Chair) to correct any technical slip or omission in the resolution, before issue of the decision notice.

(This decision was contrary to the officers recommendation of approval.  Prior to consideration of the following item, the meeting adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor B Burkhill, the Ward Councillor, Councillor J Smith, the Ward Councillor and Lisa Matthewson, 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. The reasons for appeal reference APP/R0660/W/20/3262327 being dismissed in terms of the impact of the development on the street scene and character of the area have not been adequately addressed within the proposed development.  The proposal introduces a large three storey building occupying almost the entire length of the site with minimal space to the pavement resulting in a dominant building that would be out of keeping with the existing spacious character of the surrounding area and therefore would conflict with CELPS Policies SD2 and SE4; and HNP Policies H8 and H11.

In order to give proper effect to the Committee`s intent and without changing the substance of its decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice Chair) to correct any technical slip or omission in the resolution, before issue of the decision notice.

(Prior to consideration of the following item, the meeting was adjourned for a short break).

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor C Leach, the Ward Councillor, Rob Pattinson representing a number of objectors, Linda Reynolds, an objector, Richard Finch, an objector and Jon Suckley, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred in order to allow further consideration of the submitted marketing information by the applicant.

(During consideration of the application, the meeting was adjourned in order for officers to seek further legal advice on the reason for the motion to defer as put forward by Councillor N Mannion).