Planning Committee Meeting

Cllr Steve Hogben declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 23/3773 as a member of the Railway Cottages Residents’ Association

No comments

Whilst the committee supports the principle of repair and  maintenance of the building, it was commented that the conservation officer’s advice includes details of options for replacements. The application has not defined the details of the materials and heritage approach with regard to the replacement windows and without this detail the committee is unable to support the application and seeks greater detail in the exact treatment, products and materials to be used.

The application was welcomed, but the committee seeks assurances that on site safety concerns will be addressed

RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the proposals on the following grounds:

i.                    Reduction in residential accommodation size provides for a lower standard in affordable accommodation

ii.                   The apartments as defined as 1 bedroom is misleading as they show a lounge and a TV room, with the TV room misrepresented as it is will be a second bedroom in living practice. As such the designs demonstrate the intent to not meet and circumvent minimum technical housing standards

RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the proposals on the following grounds:

i.                    1^st Floor layout proposes 2 separate living spaces. Neither conform to the minimum technical housing standard on space of providing a minimum gross internal living space area of 37m² for single occupancy (noting that single occupancy has not been specified and so could be used for multiple occupancy and therefore the proposals are further from compliance)

ii.                   Ground Floor layout proposes 3 separate living spaces. 2 of which do not conform to the minimum technical housing standard on space of providing a minimum gross internal living space area of 50m² for occupancy by 2 people.

iii.                 The application does not provide details of sustainable waste storage

iv.                 The application does not provide details of secure cycle storage

v.                   Safe emergency 1^st floor egress across a flat roof has not been defined or discounted

vi.                 The Design access statement references adequate on street parking provision available, which is not the case and evidenced by localised issues

vii.               The Design Access Statement refences the site is in Macclesfield within its conclusion.

viii.             The proposals do not provide details of any external amenity space

ix.                 The proposals are considered over development of the site

No comments

RESOLVED: That the committee sustains its objection to the proposals on the following grounds:

i.                    Over development of the site, demonstrated by Apt 3, 4 & 5 – not meeting technical minimum housing standard (showing gross internal area of 38m², not 50m² as is required)

ii.                   Over development of the site, demonstrated by Apt 2 – not meeting technical minimum housing standard (showing gross internal area of 37m², not 50m² as is required)

iii.                 Lack of external amenity space for residents and ground and first floor levels

iv.                 Lack of sustainable energy production (eg solar electricity generation)

v.                   Lack of net biodiversity gain

vi.                 Lack of parking, which is against CEC planning policy

No comments

RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the proposals on the following grounds

i.                    Overdevelopment of the site as the proposed units do not meet technical housing standards (all units gross internal areas of below 20m², with the minimum technical housing standard being 36m²)

ii.                   The proposed office building would potentially be used as additional overnight accommodation and would be unsuitable and have negative impact on neighbouring properties’ amenity

iii.                 The area is subject to an Article 4 directive to reduce the impact of HMOs on the neighbourhood and the proposed development would not be in line with the intent of the Article 4 directive

iv.                 No provision shown for sustainable waste storage

v.                   No provision shown for secure cycle storage

The committee supports the principle of development but seeks the following aspects are highlighted as potential reasons for objection to the current proposals

i.                    Lack of designated cycle parking and the potential for the provision of a bike shelter or shed

ii.                   Review of the calculations used for parking provision to ensure it is adequate, including the provision of disabled parking spaces

iii.                 Finessing of the aesthetic of the elevations with the aim of providing some representation to reflect the heritage setting

iv.                 Consideration of financial contribution to facilitate the appropriate repairs of the railway cottages site boundary wall, adjoining the development site.

No comments

RESOLVED: That the committee objects to the proposals on the following grounds:

i.                    The provision of an Article 4 directive for demonstrates the negative impact of the provision of HMOs as an unsustainable accommodation style

ii.                   The proposals represent overdevelopment of the site, indicating that the potential occupancy could reasonably be expected to be around 14 individuals

iii.                 That the proposals will adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties due to noise and disturbance

iv.                 That the proposals do not meet planning policy in terms of lack of off street parking provision

v.                   The provision of this style of accommodation in this setting is out of keeping with the traditional residential nature of the area.

1.      Bus Station/Queensway Car park – the new car park at the bus station is not listed and as such it is unclear if that will be given a sustainable parking charge structure

2.      Sandbach large common has not been listed, so therefore will remain free to use. Additionally, Sandbach car parks are not being set levies at the higher rate as seen in other towns, including Crewe

3.      Crewe is the most economically and socially deprived town in the borough and as such consideration should be given to the accessibility of fees. A linear approach does not recognise the impact of inequalities on the town and will have a disproportionate negative impact on residents of Crewe in favour of more advantaged areas of the borough

4.      Parking charges that are perceived as a barrier to access/use will negatively impact on the value of regenerative projects being delivered by CEC and as such undermine the potential value of regeneration in Crewe.

5.      Sandbach centrally-located car parks (Brookhouse Road, Chapel Street & Westfields) priced lower than Crewe centrally-located car parks, therefore not demonstrating parity and further disadvantaging communities with the highest level of deprivation in the borough.

8.2 Proposed change to Foot Path (FP32)

No comments

[Agenda Items 8.3 and 8.4 were heard directly after agenda Item 4.Members received the presentation]

8.3 Consultation presentation relating to proposed development at 332 West Street

and sought clarification on the following areas:

Waste storage and management

Lack of parking provision

Boundary treatments (to the benefit of wildlife)

Solar panels/sustainable energy production

Fire safety

8.4 Consultation presentation relating to proposed development at Chester Street

Members received the presentation and sought clarification on the following areas:

Members considered the application under agenda Item 6

8.5 Correspondence received regarding street name suggestions

The correspondence was noted and the street naming suggestions will be retained for consideration when future street naming consultations are received.

It was noted that works were nearing completion and materials were awaited for the remaining aspects of work. An observation was raised regarding the junction of Hill Street and Heath Street at Lyceum Square

10.1 23/00190E, 43A High Street

Noted