Agenda and minutes

a)    Webcasting;

b)    Introductions of Members and Officers;

c)    Other announcements.

a)    The Chair confirmed that the meeting was being broadcast live to the internet and was capable of repeated viewing. The images and sound recording could be used for training purposes within the Council. The Chair had the discretion to terminate or suspend filming if it was his opinion that continuing to do so would prejudice the proceedings of the meeting. It was likely that recording cameras would capture the image of persons seated in the public gallery and that image would become part of the broadcast. Any views expressed by any speaker in the meeting were the speaker’s own and did not necessarily reflect the views of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.

b)    Members of the Committee and Officers present were introduced by the Chair.

c)    The Chair requested that mobile phones be switched off or to silent.

            (a)     To approve as a correct record the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 17 October 2019.

            (b)     Reports on matters arising, if any.

RESOLVED – That the public minutes of the meeting of the Planning Applications Committee held on 17 October 2019 be APPROVED as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were no urgent items.

i. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests;

ii. Other Interests;

iii. Lobbying Interests.

The following declarations were made at this point, unless stated otherwise:-

HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION ON LAND EAST OF FROGHALL ROAD AND NORTH OF AYR ROAD / CHELTENHAM AVENUE, CHEADLE SEEKING: 1) FULL PERMISSION FOR 125 DWELLINGS AND ACCESS TO PROPOSED PRIMARY SCHOOL AND 2) OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR UP TO 135 DWELLINGS AND PRIMARY SCHOOL WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED FOR PERSIMMON HOMES (NORTH WEST) LTD.

(Report recommended Approval)

( Councillor Whitehouse had declared an “other” interest and left the room, taking no part in the discussion or vote.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

                   Mr. Richard Alcock         -    Objector

For the application:

                   Mr. Sean McBride           -    Applicant

NOTED -        1. LRR contained:-

·         Comment from Applicant confirming that there was no intention to deliver allotments within phase 2;

·         Revised recommendation;

·         Revised conditions in full.

                        2. Members expressed concerns regarding:-

·         Flooding – was the attenuation pond big enough? This was subject to a condition and would be set at the details stage;

·         Transport contributions could go towards the cost of a By-Pass. Members were referred to the ‘District Integrated Transport Strategy’ which outlined all highways improvements in Cheadle;

·         When would the new school be provided? A s.106 Agreement for this site would secure the transfer of the land to Staffs County Council together with a contribution towards education and contributions from other sites. The County Council would then decide when the school would be built;

·         Lack of reference to climate change implications or provisions in the report;

·         Access / egress should be via Froghall Road, not off the existing estates;

·         Playing Pitch provision should be in the vicinity of the site, not elsewhere. This would be discussed with members  when monies were received;

·         Request made that the climate change condition wording be reviewed by officers and that Phase 2 construction traffic must access via Donkey Lane;

·         Members noted that they would like to see some bungalows on Phase 2 and asked that this was added as an informative.

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions contained in the Late Representations Report and the conditions and informative referred to above and the completion of a S106 planning obligation securing matters of 33% onsite affordable housing provision, education contributions / 1.13ha site area for the primary school with pitch, onsite LEAP, off site play / playing field contributions and highway contributions.

2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal), prior to the decision being issued the Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Cawley and seconded by Councillor Emery.)

ERECTION OF 2 DETACHED DORMER BUNGALOWS FOR MR & MRS BERRISFORD.

(Report recommended Refusal)

(Councillor Roberts had declared an “other” interest, Councillor Wilkinson had declared a lobbying interest.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

For the application:

                   Mr. Rob Duncan             -    Applicant’s Agent

                   Mr. Ray Berrisford          -    Applicant

                   Cllr. Mike Worthington   -    On behalf of Ward Cllr.

NOTED -        1. The 3 key subjective questions were:-

·         Was the site within a village? On balance, members felt that it was;

·         Did the proposal qualify as ‘infil’? Members felt that it did;

·         If it was ‘infil’, was it ‘limited’? Members felt that it was.

RESOLVED – 1. That, contrary to officer recommendation the application be APPROVED for the reasons / policies stated below:-

Reasons / policies:

·            The site is within the village boundary and qualifies as ‘limited infil’, therefore appropriate development in the Green Belt.

2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal), prior to the decision being issued the Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Holmes.)

PROPOSED REPLACEMENT GARAGE WITH ADDITIONAL BEDROOM AND EN-SUITE OVER FOR MR. & MRS. ARROWSMITH.

(Report recommended Refusal)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

                   Cllr. Lytton Page             -    Ward Councillor

For the application:

                   Mr. Phil Plant                  -    Applicant’s Agent         

NOTED -        1. LRR contained Highways officer comment – no objections..

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report.

2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal), prior to the decision being issued the Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Gledhill and seconded by Councillor Cawley.)

The Chair to move:-

 “That pursuant to Section 100A (2) and (4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or nature of the proceedings whereby it is likely that exempt information as defined in Section 100A (3) of the Act would be disclosed to the public in breach of the obligation of confidence or exempt information as defined in Section 100I (1) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act would be disclosed to the public by virtue of the paragraphs indicated.”

That pursuant to Section 100A (2) and (4) of the Local Government Act, 1972,the public be excluded from the meeting in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or nature of the proceedings whereby it is likely that exempt information as defined in Section 100A (3) of the Act would be disclosed to the public in breach of the obligation of confidence or exempt information as defined in Section 100I (1) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act would be disclosed to the public by virtue of the paragraphs indicated.

The Head of Development Services presented a report to members outlining the procedures in place in dealing with enforcement-related complaints received, together with enforcement action taken over the 6 month period between April and October 2019.