Planning Committee

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD 18^TH January 2022

In attendance:              Cllr John Rhodes           Cllr Tom Dunlop Cllr Dennis Straine-Francis

Cllr Ben Wye                  Cllr Lena Hogben             Cllr Marilyn Houston

Cllr Gary Palin

4                 To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting that took place on  Tuesday 15^th November 2021

RESOLVED: That the minutes are accepted as a true record of the meeting

5. To consider making a response to the following planning applications:

No objection

No Objection

RESOLVED: That this committee objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

i. That subdivision of the units will lead to unsustainable competition with town centre units, impacting negatively on the future of the town centre and local authority regeneration efforts

ii. The consent for the units previously contained such planning conditions to reduce the negative impact on the town centre. These conditions should be maintained and enforced

iii. The proposal is contrary to planning policies S1 and S10

iv. If planning consent is given, then such conditions should be in place to ensure the units cannot be used for retail purposes that would be detrimental to the future viability of the town centre

No objection

No objection

The committee had no objection and welcomed the investment in school infrastructure.

RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the application for the following reasons

i. The proposals provide no positive improvements to the streetscene and local environment. It should be an expectation that development adds value to the community

ii. Lack of details relating to the finishing materials and concern that the finishing materials will have a negative impact on the streetscene on an already distracting and inconsistent premises/group of buildings.

iii. Ongoing concerns relating to the associated business waste, which is regularly stored outside on the public highway/pavement, which causes an obstruction to the highway.

iv. The proposed 1^st floor door cannot be used as a fire escape and there is concern that the use of the door may lead to further problems on the pavement directly below

Although the committee does not object to the proposals, it seeks that enforceable conditions are placed on any associated planning consent that seek to ensure:

i. That the proposed new shed building cannot be used for overnight accommodation

ii. That the proposed new shed building cannot be subdivided or used for any other purpose other than the ancillary enjoyment of the primary dwelling

iii. That the proposed new shed cannot receive/install water and drainage

iv. That the proposed new shed cannot be used for commercial purposes, sub let or otherwise subdivided from the primary residence.

No objection

The committee has no objection and welcomes the investment in the site ,particularly for the purposes of providing support for armed forces service people, but seeks that the develop considers the following provisions:

i. Consideration for parking. Noting locally that there is considerable on street parking, consideration for parking for the development’s associated staff, residents and visitors wherever possible.

6. To consider making responses to any urgent planning application consultations that have arisen since this agenda was published.

RESOLVED: That this committee objects to the application for the following reasons:

i. The proposals will create a significant distraction at a vey busy road junction

ii. As a gateway location to the town, this would not add any value to the streetscene and all developments should seek to improve the appearance of the town rather than detract from it.

iii. The junction has previously been considered too dangerous for organised walking busses for children and as such should not be considered for such a distraction

iv. There is concern the nature of the display would potentially be a trigger for those living with visually activated conditions (eg vertigo, specific forms of epilepsy)

RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the application for the following reasons:

i. That the provision for producing sustainable electricity/power on the site remains valid

ii. That the applicants other works away from the application site and town bear no relevance to the need to demonstrate sustainability for all new developments

iii. The removal of such a condition would represent a dangerous precedent which would not reflect the importance of recognising the need for investment in sustainable development, contrary to the climate emergency formally recognised by Cheshire East Council

The committee recognises that the application is for LPS 11in the CEC Local Plan, accepting that the site is identified for housing development. Additionally, it was commented that the site layout and proposals, in principle, represented a positive intent to provide affordable housing in an attractive setting. However, the committee identified some issues that were not acceptable. Disappointment was expressed at the lack of consultation prior to submitting the application with the local council by the developer and that the planning authority had not directed the developer to consider pre application consultation or provided a more significant time for consideration of this complex application during consultation.

             RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the application for the following reasons:

i. The application does not provide for any sustainable energy generation. It is noted that many, if not all, of the pitched rooves of the houses would be suitable for PV installations (Solar power generation), making a significant contribution to reduce the development’s carbon footprint and to make the cost of living in the houses more sustainable for the future residents.

ii. The play area is not adequate for the development. It should be considered how the future green spaces will be maintained and managed; by who and that the play area should be considerably larger to accommodate potentially high proportion of young families in the proposed homes.

iii. The development does not demonstrate net biodiversity gain. The derisory installation of a small number of bird boxes does not meet the requirements of the relevant CEC planning policy. More nesting sites should be included (including for swifts/swallows/house martins), invertebrate habitats and areas for small mammals and amphibians.

iv. Boundary treatments should be permeable to wildlife, such as hedgehogs.

v. All existing hedges should be retained.

vi. The SUDS documentation does not identify proactive actions to ensure sustainable drainage in its conclusions and this does not meet the needs of ensuring reduced risk of flooding due to the development.

No objection

7. To note responses submitted under delegation since the previous meeting

The Council objects to this proposal on the following grounds

1. The proposal is contrary to the emerging Article 4 Directive from Cheshire East as the Planning Authority, which recognises the negative impacts of such development s on local neighbourhoods, amenity and sustainability.
2. Inadequate waste storage that will lead to on street waste and further exacerbation of localised anti social issues
3. Inadequate parking, leading to on street parking issues
4. Loss of amenity for existing residents with the density of occupation within the proposal leading to noise and disturbance
5. Provision of low quality living accommodation does not meet the expectations of social sustainability
6. Bedroom sizes indicated are smaller than recommended by regulation for 4 of the 5 rooms
7. Inadequate bike storage.

The Council objects to the proposal as it builds forward of the development line in to the public realm. In doing so it will adversely affect the visual amenity of the area and provide an incongruous building frontage that cannot be read in context of the surrounding architecture.

The Council objects to this proposal as the addition of an LED display on the side elevation of the property is considered to be inappropriate as it would be introduce an incongruous feature into the area to the detriment of visual amenity. It is acknowledged that the commercial properties nearby do display advertisements; however these are not illuminated and are appropriate to the businesses operating from the site, whereas the proposed LED display is not appropriate to be displayed on the side elevation of a building with architectural character.

Policy BE.19 of the adopted local plan requires that advertisements and signs should not have an adverse effect on the character of the streetscene or individual buildings, should not be displayed on gable ends or flank walls and should not use intermittent light sources. The proposal is clearly contrary to these requirements.

The council objects to the application on the following grounds

1. Inadequate access. The drawings show a width of in excess of 4m width on the plans but this does not reflect the reasonable expectations of available width on site
2. Proximity of access to existing bungalow
3. Access should provide for 2 vehicles passing (guidance indicates 4.4m minimum), which is not possible on this site
4. Concerns over waste management and collection. If to be collected from Sycamore Ave, the waste bins will cause an obstruction on the highway and may obstruct residential amenity. Distance to move waste bins to Sycamore Avenue may be considered unreasonable for many, particularly those with mobility issues.
5. The plans do not show a vehicle sweep  that demonstrates safe access to the site for waste vehicles or emergency services
6. The proposals represent back land development

The council objects to the proposal on the following grounds

1. Over development of the site
2. Inadequate accommodation standards due to small scale rooms and over division of the building
3. Fire safety concerns relating to the 2^nd floor accommodation and means of safe escape
4. Restricted height aspects shown in the existing layout drawings have not been addressed and will lead to inadequate accommodation standards
5. Creation of a sandwich effect on the neighbouring property (131 Eddleston Road) which is contrary to the  Cheshire East emerging Article 4 directive
6. Loss of amenity to existing residents due to noise, overcrowding, on street parking and waste management issues.
7. We reflect and support the issues raised by residents who have submitted their objections

No objection, but seek that the site demonstrates net biodiversity gain, as per CEC policy; that there is substantial tree planting on site; and that sustainable energy production is included on the site (eg solar) along with electric vehicle charging points

We have concerns that the proposal is not in keeping with the heritage nature of the building and will have a negative impact on the site and aesthetic value of the heritage building

That, although not objecting, we express concern that the proposal shows the extension will be build up to the boundary of the adjoining property

That the narrow high window on the side elevation immediately adjacent to the adjoining property boundary of the proposed designs is not required and that it should either be removed from the proposal or conditions such that obscured glass is used.

     Meeting closed at 7:22pm

Chair    Cllr John Rhodes

Clerk    P Turner