Planning Committee

Cllr Rhodes declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications 22/4151 & 22/4152 as a volunteer governor of the applicant school.

None

The Heritage Officer’s comments have been noted and submitted

Whilst the committee has no objection to the proposal, any associated approval of the application should include such enforceable conditions as to ensure:

i.                    That the new building is not used for overnight or habitable accommodation.

ii.                   That the use of the new building does not cause a nuisance by means of noise or light.

iii.                 That the building cannot be used for independent business activities

6.1

6.2

Consultation on the proposal to extend the age range at Underwood West Academy from 4-11 years to 2-11 years from 27 February 2023

No objection

No objection

RESOLVED: That the committee supports the principle of development but raises the following observations and concerns:

i.                    Reduction in town centre parking capacity, particularly that used for access to the Library and Lifestyle Centre

ii.                   The car park design layout should include for more disabled parking bays

iii.                 The car park design layout should include for more family-friendly parking bays

iv.                 The car park design layout should include for an increased proportion of EV charging bays.

No objection

No objection

RESOLVED:  That the committee objects to the proposal in the strongest terms, with the following issues identified:

i.                    That the proliferation of HMOs in Crewe has led to a negative impact on the community by the provision of low quality and high density accommodation, which has resulted in the Article 4 directive implemented by the planning authority to address these issues and prevent further similar developments.

ii.                   Each bedroom is proposed as a double, with potential occupation of 18 residents, being of unsustainable density

iii.                 The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site, which would be more appropriate for a traditional single residence or small number of apartments.

iv.                 The proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents due to on street parking, additional noise, ASB and on street waste

v.                   The proposal is not in keeping with the existing residences and nature of the surrounding accommodation as family and a sustainable community.

vi.                 The design proposal provides for only one access/exit for all potential residents, which is considered unsafe and also provides poor amenity for residents

vii.               The kitchen diner is of insufficient scale to the needs of potentially 18 residents and would provide very poor quality accommodation and amenity for potential residents.

viii.             Inadequate parking provision which does not reflect planning policy levels of expected provision for the number of residents proposed.

The agreed responses were noted

Noted

Noted

No objection

RESOLVED: That the building name is recommended to be Martin Heath House

Noted, with thanks to the Heritage officer