Agenda item

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 Great Crested Newts associated with the ponds located at Handforth Hall. There is currently insufficient information to assess the impact upon this protected species. 

The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SE3 of the CELPS, policy NE11 of the MBLP and policy H8 of the HNP.

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.