To receive and, if so determined, to approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 14^th September, 2017.

            RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14^th September, 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.  

To consider a report of the Head of Planning and Development, to be tabled at the meeting.

The Head of Planning and Development submitted a report informing Members of additional information received regarding applications for planning permission to be determined by the Committee.

            RESOLVED:  That the report be received and noted.

To consider the attached reports of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Head of Planning and Development submitted a report concerning an application for planning permission for the erection of 4 residential two storey dwellings (with habitable roof accommodation), along with the extension and conversion of existing pavilion building to provide a single dwelling (total 5 dwellings proposed) and creation of a new vehicle and pedestrian access off Church Walk, with associated landscaping, cycle parking and refuse store.

            RESOLVED: That Members are minded to grant planning permission for the development and that the determination of the application hereafter be deferred and delegated to the Head of Planning and Development as follows:-

            (i)     To complete a suitable Legal Agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure:

                    ·   A financial contribution of £32,760 towards enhancing the quality of existing local facilities at John Leigh Park, Altrincham, to compensate for the loss of protected open space at the application site.

                (ii) That upon the satisfactory completion of the above Legal Agreement that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions now determined.

The Head of Planning and Development submitted a report concerning an application for planning permission for the erection of a two storey side and part single/part two storey rear extension. Demolition of the existing garage and erection of a rear and side decking area.

It was moved and seconded that planning permission be refused.

The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

            RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

            The proposed development would result in an inadequate level of off-street car parking provision and is therefore likely to lead to an unacceptable impact on on-street car parking in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development would therefore have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of nearby residents and on highway safety. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy L7 of the Trafford Core Strategy and guidance in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document 3: Parking Standards and Design. 

            The proposed development, by reason of the position and height of the rear raised deck walkway, would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking of and loss of privacy to the private rear garden area of No. 56 Lynn Avenue. The proposed development would therefore have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity that the occupiers of that property could reasonably expect to enjoy.  As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy L7 of the Trafford Core Strategy and guidance in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document, SPD4: A guide for Designing House Extensions and Alterations.

Any other item or items which by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered at this meeting as a matter of urgency.

Judicial Review Outcome

[Note: The Chairman agreed to allow this item as Urgent Business as the notice from the Court was received after publication of the agenda.]

The Head of Planning and Development updated the Committee on the outcome of Peel’s Claim for Judicial Review against the decision to grant planning permission for the Common Lane, Carrington scheme (ref. 88779/OUT/16) with the Judge determining that it was totally without merit, and refused to grant leave to elevate the matter to a hearing. A full award of costs was granted to the Council as Defendant and HIMOR as Interested Party.  The Committee were advised that the Council had subsequently requested Peel to withdraw their Claim against the decision to grant planning permission for the Carrington Village scheme (ref. 88439/HYB/16) and were awaiting a response.