Planning Committee
MINUTES of the meeting held 20th March 2023
In attendance:
Cllr Emma Angier
Cllr Lena Hogben
Cllr Marilyn Houston
Cllr Kevin Murray
Cllr Gary Palin
Cllr John Rhodes
Cllr Dennis Straine-Francis
| PL/22/8/1 | To receive apologies for absence
Cllr Ben Wye |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PL/22/8/2 | To note declarations of Members’ interests
None |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PL/22/8/3 | To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13th February 2023
RESOLVED: That the minutes are approved as a true record of the meeting |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PL/22/8/4 | Public Participation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A period not exceeding 15 minutes for members of the public to ask questions or submit comments that relate to items on the published agenda.
None |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PL/22/8/5 | To consider making a response to the following planning applications: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the proposals on the following issues: i. The proposals do not meet the planning authority’s policy associated with minimum parking provision, being that the development will not provide adequate parking ii. That the lack of parking will have an adverse effect on existing residences due to increased density of on street parking iii. Cheshire East Highways recently objected to a proposal with inadequate parking (23/0231N), citing the negative impact on neighbouring residences due to increased on street parking. The assertion that this is a sustainable location that will not need additional parking is unsustainable as can be seen by visiting the site and all the surrounding streets in this area where parking is a significant issue for amenity and safety. iv. The defined access within the access statement is not confirmed as deliverable due to independently declared private ownership v. The site’s location on the highway risks collision or impact with cars and/or pedestrians and or cyclists due to the need to reverse out of the parking space.
No objection
The committee had no objection, but seeks to ensure that the comments raised by the Environmental Protection officer and residents comments associated with EV charging points are progressed.
Whilst the committee welcomes the investment in the building, which is in significant disrepair, it is a building in a sensitive heritage setting and design and all considerations of heritage should be ensured. RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the proposals on the following issues: i. That the proposed room and residence dimensions do not meet the minimum technical housing standards, yet to be adopted by Cheshire East, but this failing should not impact on the quality of accommodation delivered for the residents of Crewe. ii. That the proposals do not provide waste storage away from the public realm. Contrary to Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy SE1.4.iv iii. The risk of on street waste will lead to loss of amenity for existing residents nearby and risk public health issues due to the encouragement of vermin iv. That the proposals do not provide adequate access for those with mobility issues due to the cramped designs for living accommodation. Contrary to Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy SE1.4.v v. That the development constitutes overdevelopment of the site and creates an HMO by default. vi. The development does not meet local plan policy as it does not provide for secure and adequate cycle storage. vii. No residential mix is demonstrated. Contrary to Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy SC4 viii. The proposals should be considered under a heritage setting and within Local Plan Policies SD1.1.iv SE7 ix. There is no external amenity space associated with the proposals, which further impacts the low quality and high density design of the proposal. Contrary to Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policies SD1.2.i and SE1.4.ii x. The development is more than 500m from outdoor amenity space. Contrary to Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (Table 9.1) xi. The proposal does not provide adequate safe egress in the event of an emergency. Such proposals should seek to provide additional fire/emergency escape routes
No objection.
No objection
No objection
RESOLVED: That the committee objects to this proposal on the following issues: i. The proposal is for independent living accommodation away from the primary dwelling. This represents over development of the site ii. The proposal risks loss of amenity for neighbouring properties due to noise and intrusion related to the additional of secondary living accommodation iii. The clear concerns of the multiple neighbour comments should be considered and responded to
No objection
No objection
The committee had no objection to the proposals, but seeks that the development ensures it meets planning policy associated with: i. The provision of covered and secure cycle storage ii. The provision of electric vehicle charging points iii. The provision of sustainable energy production eg PV panels iv. Ensuring net biodiversity gain.
The committee seeks that the wall feature that is noted for removal is recognised as an original remnant aspect of the railway infrastructure of the town and as such it should be recorded in detail and the bricks reclaimed for reuse elsewhere on the site.
No objection
No objection
No objection
No objection
No objection
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| No objection |
| PL/22/8/6 | To consider making responses to any urgent planning application consultations that have arisen since this agenda was published | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
No objection
No objection
No objection
RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the proposals on the following issues: i. That the proposal represents over development of the site, being that the site is already completely built out, with no outdoor space left ii. That the proposal, contrary to local plan policy, does not provide any amenity space for the residential development iii. That the proposal, contrary to local plan policy, does not provide for adequate parking provision, which will adversely affect current on street parking issues iv. That the proposal, contrary to local plan policy, does not provide for sustainable or secure waste storage, which will adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties due to on street waste v. That the proposal, contrary to local plan policy, does not provide secure cycle storage vi. The application is inaccurate. The property would access and egress on to Bowen Cooke Avenue, not West Street. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PL/22/8/7 | To note responses submitted under delegation since the previous meeting
None |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PL/22/8/8 | To note and/or consider correspondence, consultations, planning policy circulated by the planning authority (Cheshire East Council) and member items | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8.1 CAN26847 Proposed telecommunications apparatus in Crewe
The committee expressed that the proposed location was not supported due to concerns relating to distraction and obstruction at a busy road junction and roundabout 8.2 Cheshire East Mini Holland Briefing The briefing was received and members will have the opportunity to provide comments and questions by email 8.3 Cheshire East Road naming consultation It was agreed to submit the request that Tottys Hall Farm is considered as a reference for the roads. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PL/22/8/9 | To note the proposed date of the next meeting Monday 17th April 2023 at 6pm. |
Meeting closed at 7.46pm
Chair Cllr John Rhodes
Clerk P Turner
Recent Comments