To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors West, O’Neil, F. Ahmed, S. Smith, Emsley, Mir, T. Smith.

To determine whether there are any additional items of business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chair decides should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business received.

Members are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary, personal or personal and prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests relating to items on this agenda and/or indicate if S106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.   

Councillor Aasim Rashid informed the Committee that he would be speaking as Ward Councillor on Application 23/00431/HYBR Castleton Sidings, Heywood Road, Rochdale. Consequently, Councillor Aasim Rashid did not take part in the discussion and voting on this application. During the consideration and voting on this matter, Councillor Aasim Rashid sat with residents in the public gallery and addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor, in line with the Public Participation Protocol.

To determine any items on the agenda, if any, where the public are to be excluded from the meeting.

Public Items

There were no items for exclusion of press and public.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the last meeting held on 23^rd May 2024

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd May 2024 be approved as a correct record.

Proposal: Full application for residential development for 191 dwellings including access, landscaping, open space together with erection of sub-station and foul water pump station

APPLICATION: 23/00431/HYBR

APPLICANT: Kellen Homes Ltd

PROPOSAL: Full application for residential development for 191 dwellings including access, landscaping, open space together with erection of sub-station and foul water pump station

LOCATION: Castleton Sidings, Heywood Road, Rochdale

In presenting the report, Officers informed that an additional contribution of £100,000 towards primary education had been offered by the developer.

It was MOVED and SECONDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed in the report, the completion of a planning obligation in accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as outlined in the report, including an additional contribution of £100,000 towards primary education and an additional condition concerning no access to construction vehicles through The Fairway during construction period. 

On being put to the vote, FIVE VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of approval and ONE VOTE was cast AGAINST with NO ABSTENTIONS.

DECISION: That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the conditions as outlined in the report, the completion of a planning obligation in accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as outlined in the report, including an additional contribution of £100,000 towards primary education and an additional condition concerning no access to construction vehicles through The Fairway during construction period.

NOTES:

1. Objectors and applicants attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application;
2. One Ward Councillors attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on the application.

Proposal: Request for Tree Preservation Order to protect an Oak tree on Apple Tree Way

At this point in the proceedings, Councillor Aasim Rashid re-joined the Committee to consider Application 23/00258/TPO Land Rear Of 17 Apple Three Way, Rochdale, OL16 4SW

APPLICATION: 23/00258/TPO

APPLICANT: Zoe Ball

PROPOSAL: Request for Tree Preservation Order to protect an Oak tree on Apple Tree Way

LOCATION: Land Rear Of 17 Apple Tree Way, Rochdale, OL16 4SW

It was MOVED and SECONDED that the application request for a Tree Protection Order to one Oak tree located to the rear of No 17 Apple Tree Way be REFUSED.

On being put to the vote, FIVE VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of refusal and TWO VOTES were cast AGAINST with NO ABSTENTIONS.

DECISION: That application request for a Tree Protection Order be REFUSED.