Agenda item

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor M Benson, the neighbouring Ward Councillor and Matthew Wedderburn, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

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 commercial buildings are standard generic designs that pay little regard to Sandbach as a place and consequently the development will not suitably integrate and add to the overall quality to the area in architectural terms. Furthermore the topography of the site is not conductive to a large floorplate/car park format and would result substantial engineered retaining structures. 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 Old Mill Road would act as a barrier between the application site and Sandbach Town Centre. Furthermore the development would not encourage linked trips and is not considered to be sustainable. 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 application site is of a very challenging topography including an escarpment that runs along the central part of the site. The submitted information demonstrates that the development will require engineered retaining walls with minimal landscape mitigation along the western boundary, whilst there would also be minimal landscape mitigation along the eastern boundary with Condliffe Close and Palmer Road. On this basis the development would not achieve a sense of place and would be harmful to the character of the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies SD2, SE1 and SE4 of the CELPS, PC2 of the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan and guidance contained within the NPPF.

6.         The proposed development is located partly within the Sandbach Wildlife Corridor. The proposed development would result in a loss of a substantial area of habitat within the wildlife corridor. The proposed development would result in an overall loss of biodiversity from the designated wildlife corridor. As a result the proposed development would be contrary to Congleton Local Plan Policy NR4, CELPS Policy SE3, SNP Policies PC4 and JLE1 and the NPPF.

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

Development Management in consultation with the Chairman (or in their

absence the Vice Chairman) to correct any technical slip or omission in the

resolution, before issue of the decision notice.

If the application is subject to an appeal approval is given to enter into a S106

Agreement with the following Heads of Terms;