Agenda item

To consider the above planning application.

Having declared an interest, Councillor R Fletcher left the meeting whilst the Committee considered this planning application.

Consideration was given to the above planning application.

The following attended the meeting and spoke in relation to the application:

Sue Helliwell (objector) and Louise Leyland (agent).

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1               The proposal by not providing the policy required financial contributions towards health, education, highway improvements & BNG and would not mitigate the impacts of the development on the local community. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SD1, SD2, IN1, IN2, SC2, SE6, LPS 21 of the CELPS and REC2 of the CELPS, H3, TTS6, NBE5 of the ANP and the NPPF.

2               the proposal appears cramped as nearly half (47%) of the proposed dwellings have insufficient private amenity space which would not result in the creation of a suitable living environment for future occupiers.  The proposed development is contrary to Policies SE1, SD1 and SD2 of the CELPS, GEN1 & HOU13 of the SADPD and the NPPF.

3               The design and layout of the proposed development is considered to be poor and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area.  As a result, the proposal would not make a positive contribution to the area, and would be contrary to Policy SD1, SD2, SE1 of the CELPS, The Cheshire East Design Guide SPD, Policy Gen1, HOU10 of the SADPD, H6 of the ANP and the requirements of the NPPF and the requirements of the NPPF.

4               the proposal would not provide a suitable mix of property types given the limited number of 1 beds and no justification has been provided for the local need for this mix of housing.  The proposal also fails to provide 6% wheel chair adaptable dwellings.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SC4 of the CELPS, HOU8 of the SAPDP, H1 of the ANP and guidance contained within the NPPF.

5               the proposal would result in the loss of an existing area of protected open space with no improvements made to the overall open space provision within Alsager.  As a result the proposal is contrary to Policy SE6 of the CELPS, REC1 of the SADPD, NBE1 of the ANP and the guidance within the NPPF.

6               The proposal whilst showing a net gain for biodiversity of 12.31 units (3.42%), does not satisfy ‘trading rules’ as there is failure to replace lost habitats with new habitats of the required type or quality. Schemes that fail to comply with the trading rules cannot be said to achieve a net gain. As a result, the proposal is contrary to Policies SE3 of the CELPS & ENV2 of the SADPD and NBE5 of the ANP.

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 Planning, in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence Vice Chair) of the Southern Planning Committee 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: