Agenda item

To consider the above report.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor Rob Moreton, the Ward Councillor, Congleton Town Councillor, Amanda Martin, Objector Adam Taylor, and Joe Nugent the Agent for the Applicant attended the virtual meeting and spoke on behalf of the application).

RESOLVED-

That, for the reasons set out in the report, the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Refuse for the following reasons:

1)    The proposal is an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt, as defined by the Development Plan. The development is therefore contrary to policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and Policy PS7 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review and would cause material harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed development by reason of inappropriateness would be contrary to nationally established policy as set out in NPPF, and as a result would cause harm to the objectives of this guidance. There are no very special circumstances to outweigh this harm.

2)    The application site is located within the Green Belt and adjacent to a key service centre. The application is not supported by an up-to-date Housing Needs Survey or a thorough site options appraisal which demonstrates why the site is the most suitable to meet identified housing need. Furthermore a development of 35 affordable units would exceed the threshold criteria of 10 units identified by Policy SC6. As a result the proposed development would not comply with all the requirements for Rural Exception housing and constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt contrary to Policies SC6 and PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy.

3)    The proposed submission does not provide the level of detail required to inform a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the development on existing trees and woodland cover, including trees within ancient woodland and those protected by the Congleton Borough Council (Gordale Close) TPO 1983. The submission has therefore failed to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in the loss of trees contrary to Policy SE5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4)    The proposed development, as shown on the illustrative layout plan, is likely to result in a significant adverse impact on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland and also Priority Woodland located on site. The application fails to provide sufficient information to determine, assess, and mitigate any potential impacts on the Local Wildlife Site, Ancient Woodland and Priority Woodland. The proposed development would also result in the loss of an area of Local Wildlife Site quality grassland with a corresponding significant loss of biodiversity. The development would result in the loss of a minor bat roost, whilst mitigation and compensation measures to address this impact have been submitted the proposed development is not considered to be of overriding public interest and not developing this site is considered to be a suitable alternative in this instance. 

The application fails to demonstrate that it would contribute positively to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. The application therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Policy SE 3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and saved Policies NR3 and NR4 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review and the provisions of paras 174-177 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5)    Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development is a sustainable form of development which can achieve an adequate quality of design that would be in keeping with the location of the site adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. In reaching this conclusion regard was had to the indicative layout, and the proposals are contrary to the Policy SD1, SD2, SE1, and SE7 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and the Residential Design Guide SPD.  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 Interim Head of Planning has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Southern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision. 

In order to give proper effect to the Committee’s intent and without changing the substance of its decision, authority is delegated to the Interim Head 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.

Should the application be subject to an appeal, the following Heads of Terms should be secured as part of any S106 Agreement: