Agenda item

To consider the above planning application.

Consideration was given to the above application.

(Councillor Brian Puddicombe, (Ward Councillor) and Councillor F Wilson (Macclesfield Town Council), attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The principle of the development is not accepted as it would completely preclude the ability to provide protected open space as part of emerging SADPD policies and provide a greenway with ecological network benefits relating to the overarching, longstanding SMDA LPS 13 allocation, where the provision of affordable housing beyond policy requirements argument presented is not considered to provide material circumstances which outweigh the issue with the principle of the development. It is therefore considered that the principle of the development is contrary to policies MP1, SD1, SD2, SC1, SC3, SE1, SE6 and allocation LPS 13 of the CELPS, NE18, RT2, RT5, RT7 and RT8 of the MBLP, INF1 and REC1 of the emerging SADPD, the SMDA 1998 and paragraph 99 of the NPPF.

2. The proposed development represents the overdevelopment of a confined and irregular shaped site which does not present a high-quality residential scheme that responds to local characteristics. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies and guidance SD1, SD2 and SE1 of the CELPS, DC35, DC36 and DC41 of the MBLP, GEN1 of the emerging SADPD and the CEDG.

3. There is insufficient information to demonstrate that the layout, specifically regarding the rear block of apartments presents a sustainable relationship with a protected and high amenity tree, T6 Sycamore, a major landscape tree. It is considered that there are no clear overriding reasons for allowing the development noting issues with the principle of the development and there are suitable alternatives to the development with regards to the impact of the development on this protected tree. Due to the open and inclining nature (north east to south west) it is considered that appropriate landscaping could not be achieved in combination with the proposals to mitigate the harm caused by them on the landscape of the site and the major landscape tree. Taking into account these points it is considered the development is contrary to policies and guidance SD1, SD2, SE1, SE4 and SE5 of the CELPS, DC8, DC9, DC37 and DC41 of the MBLP, ENV5 and ENV6 of the emerging SADPD and the Trees and Development SPD.

4. There is insufficient information presented within the application with regards to the consideration of flood risk and water management for the site and impacts on the immediate surrounding area and watercourses as a result of the development, in an area with existing drainage, flooding and water management problems and to this regard at present the development would be contrary to policies SD1, SD2, SE1, LPS13 and SE13 of the CELPS, DC15, DC16 and DC17 of the MBLP and ENV7, ENV16, ENV17 and INF9 of the SADPD.

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 Head of Planning has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Prior to consideration of the following item, the meeting adjourned for a

short break)