Agenda and minutes

Councillors Baker and Oliver.  Councillors Savage and Rowena Hay sent apologies in advance for their late arrival.

There were none.

1. Councillor Fisher – was not on Planning View, so has visited all three sites independently.
2. Councillor Paul McCloskey – 17/02447/FUL St Francis, Park Lane, Prestbury
3. Councillor Lillywhite – 17/02436/FUL 11 Lansdown Walk

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th January 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

Introduction:

LW introduced this application for eight dwellings on land to the rear of St Lawrence’s Church, which seeks revisions to an almost identical scheme permitted in 2015.  A similar application was made last year and due to come to Committee until it became clear that land ownership issues concerning the access lane made the application invalid.  The main changes are to fenestration, an increase in height, and a reduction in width of the access lane with the inclusion of the pedestrian footpath.  In 2016, Ubico started using wider vehicles, which would make roadside collections unsuitable.  The applicant has agreed to make a private arrangement with an alternative refuse-collecting service, and has drafted a 106 agreement which has been agreed by all parties.  It also secures the land to the north of the site for church-related purposes, or garden/recreational use.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Mark Snape, of Centaur Homes Ltd, in support

Full permission was granted for a similar scheme in 2015, and this revised application only required due to an error on the land ownership certificate submitted by a previous applicant.  The revised application alters the access arrangements and the external design.  Due to changes in design standards, access had to be amended from a shared surface, approved in 2015, to one including a dedicated pedestrian footpath.  Since 2015, Ubico has increased the size of its refuse vehicles, which can no longer access the site.  Objections have been raised to the scheme in relation of refuse collection matters;  to remedy the situation, and avoid the need for residents to carry their bins the Church Road, where they would block the footpath, a private bin collection service is proposed, funded by residents of the development through a dedicated management company.  This has been secured by an S106 agreement, agreed by all parties, which allows the Council to have control over the approval of the private waste collection service prior to occupation of the dwellings, both now and in the future.   GCC Highways has not raised any technical objection to the access.  The external design alterations are minor in detail, and officers have not raised any objection.  Concerns related to ecology have been addressed through the process, and mitigation measures will be provided as part of the scheme, as they were in 2015.  In all other respects, the development remains as permitted in 2015.

Councillor Clucas, in objection

As with the previous application at this site, she and local residents have a number of concerns about the scheme.  The 2014 officer report included consultee comments from the county ecologist, referring to a number of badger setts in this particular part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 254.

Introduction:

MP introduced this application, which concerns a newly constructed residence in the conservation area – one of five contemporary developments in 2015.  This application proposes a new fire escape and roof terrace, provided in an existing area of inaccessible flat roof,together with the addition of French doors and the building up of the parapet for privacy.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Mason, and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

CH:  how does what is proposed constitute a fire escape?  It doesn’t look like one.

BF:  what is the fire officer’s opinion of it?

MP, in response:

-       the application submitted this application following the visit of a fire officer, and can confirm that the proposal meets the current guidelines.  The roof terrace will be an additional escape route, with a roll-out portable ladder, which hooks over the front wall and drops down into the courtyard.

AH:  is interested in the precedent this could set – someone could say they want a swimming pool and the extra water will help put out a fire!

PM:  from past experience, before voting in favour of a rope ladder, would be inclined to test it out – it isn’t easy.

GB:  the fire escape ladder is a metal ladder which rolls down the wall.  In the event of a fire, it would be up to the individual whether to use it or not.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT 

Introduction:

BH described the proposal as above.  The current dwelling is not listed, neither is it in a conservation area.  It is in the greenbelt, and part of a suggested new conservation area, which is currently the subject of a consultation process.  There is an extant planning permission for extensions to the house.  Historic England has been consulted regarding the possible listing of the house, but does not consider it worthy of listing, for reasons set out in the report.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Payne, in view of the high level of local concern, and the officer recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Mr William Strachan, neighbour, in objection

Is a resident of Park Lane, and speaks on behalf of the 22 households which have objected to this application.  Is also a town planner, with 40 years’ experience.  It would be completely wrong to accept the report on the hypothetical assumption that the house will be demolished, come what may.  The scale and materials are wrong and there is not one reference area, volume, or height in the report.  The proposal is materially larger than the existing dwelling, and 140 cubic metres bigger than the fall-back; fails to comply 300 cubic metres.  Policy CO7 is blown apart by this, and the proposal is indefensible in terms of both GB2 and the National Planning Policy Framework.  It will be the largest house in the smallest plot, two times the footprint of the existing dwelling.  The house is situated in the green belt, and a potential conservation area – the council’s own conservation officer says it alland is supported by the Civic Society, with concerns not only about the loss of St Francis but also about the design, materials and  orientation of the proposed replacement.  St Francis may not be a designated heritage asset, but the Conservation Officer has highlighted Paragraph 135 of the NPPF, which states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account when determining an application – it is wrong therefore to say that St Francis has no protection. The Architects Panel consider the design to be unsupportable.  The scale, materials, and orientation will destroy the character of the area.The report states that the orientation of the proposed dwelling mirrors Crossways, but this is incorrect – it is at right angles to Crossways.  Where is the bat survey?  Where is the ecology report?  Urges Members to reject this appalling proposal and save the street.

Mr Mark Le Grand, agent, in support

The proposed development comprises the demolition of St Francis and the construction of a replacement dwelling.  Understands that some of the neighbours feel aggrieved by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 256.

There were none.

The meeting ended at 7.55pm.