Agenda item

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Mr Burns, representing 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 is inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to policy PG3 of the CELPS.

2.         The proposed residential mix does not accord with the objective of the KNP, which identifies the need for new housing which meets the need of smaller families, single people, and the elderly.  The more dominant open market units in this scheme are the larger 4 and 5 bed house types, which is contrary to policy H1 of the draft KNP, and subsequently policy SE4 of the CELPS.

3.         Assessment of the proposals against the CEC Design Guide and Building for Life 12 indicates that there are issues in several fundamental areas.  As a consequence, the proposal is not considered to be good enough to approve.  The proposal is contrary to policies SD2 and SE1 of the CELPS, and the CEC Design Guide.

4.         A landscape character assessment required by policy LPS 37 has not been submitted.  This is required, not only to guide the scale and massing of new development, ensuring that it is acceptable in surrounding landscape, but also to ensure a high quality design which reflects and respects the character of the area, built form and surrounding landscape.  The submission is therefore contrary to policy LPS 37.

5.         A heritage impact assessment has not been submitted to consider the impact upon the adjacent designated heritage asset, the Grade II* Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden, and as such the proposal is contrary to paragraph 189 of Framework and policy SE7 of CELPS.

6.         Inadequate landscape detail has been provided.  The submission is therefore not in compliance with the requirements of the condition 7 of the outline permission, which sets out a range of detail that is required with the reserved matters submission, which has not been submitted.

7.         The scale of the dwellings on certain plots conflicts with plans approved under the outline consent 13/2935M.  The proposal is therefore not in compliance with condition 4 of the outline permission

8.         An affordable housing scheme that is required by the s106 to be submitted with the first reserved matters application has not been submitted.  Insufficient information has therefore been submitted to enable an assessment of compliance with policy SC5 of the CELPS.

9.         A landscape scheme (providing a detailed specification for the public open space) that is required by the s106 to be submitted at the same time as the first reserved matters application has not been submitted.  Insufficient information has therefore been submitted to enable an assessment of compliance with policy DC40 of the MBLP and policy SE6 of the CELPS.

10.       Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the full extent of the impact of the development upon trees or woodlands (including veteran trees), that provide a significant contribution to the amenity, biodiversity, landscape character or historic character of the surrounding area.  Accordingly, compliance with policies SE3 and SE5 of the CELPS and paragraph 175 of the Framework cannot be confirmed.

11.       Insufficient phasing details have been submitted to demonstrate compliance with condition 29 of the outline permission.

12.       Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed levels are acceptable, having regard to the requirements of conditions 6 and 22 of the outline permission and the 1 in 100 years plus climate change flood level.

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.