Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest stated.

Apologies were received from Cllr Welsh and Cllr Owen.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting(s).

Resolved:                 That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record.

Resolved:

Subject to no representations being received by the 5^th June which raise material planning objections to the development which have not already been addressed in the report and which cannot be addressed by appropriate conditions.

(a)     That the application be delegated to the Head of Planning for approval subject to conditions relating to the following:-

1. Time limit

2. Approved drawings

3. Materials

4. Off-site replacement tree planting and on-site landscaping scheme

5. Tree protection measures during construction inclusive of provision to retain tree T3

6. Any such appropriate conditions

(b)   If such representations are received, that the application be referred back to a subsequent meeting of the Planning Committee for reconsideration

Resolved:

That the application be permitted subject to conditions concerning the following matters:-

1.         Time limit and plans

2.         Materials, hardstandings and boundary treatment details as per submission

3.         Construction hours

4.         Contaminated land (demolition excluded from commencement)

5.         Specified glazing details

6.         Submission and approval of a plan showing a continuous 1.8 m footway and visibility splays

7.         Restriction of garages to car parking only

8.         Removal of existing site access on Jamage Road

9.         Access drive being of a porous bound material

10.       Full soft landscaping details

11.       Removal in some cases of permitted development rights for extensions, alterations, outbuildings & hardstandings

12.       Accesses, parking, turning area, footway improvements and visibility as per Drawing No. 15/1/3420/1, Revision A,

13.         Access drives being of a bound porous material,

14.         The garage to plot 9 having a roller shutter door,

15.         All garages on plots 5, 7 and 8 to be retained for parking of motor vehicles,

16.         That a roller shutter door be fitted to the garage of plot 9.

17.         The submission and approval of a plan showing Hurst Close widened to 5.5 m, with associated drainage and any related works, and a 1.8 m footway provided, on the north side of Hurst Close, and the implementation of such works prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings.

Resolved:

That the City Council be advised that the Borough Council objects to the application on the following grounds:

1.    The proposal involves Class A1 (retail) floorspace, a main town centre use as identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), in this out of centre location.  Furthermore the applicant has not demonstrated, through the submitted sequential assessment, that the proposed development cannot be located within Newcastle on the site of the former Sainsbury’s store on Ryecroft which is available within a reasonable time frame.

2.    Permitting the development would have an adverse impact on the committed and planned investment in the Ryecroft site within Newcastle Town Centre.

Resolved:

That the planning obligation associated with planning application 13/00970/OUT for residential development (to a maximum of 100 dwellings) be modified to reduce the requirement for the affordable housing contribution to 6% of the total number of dwellings constructed, 3% social rented and 3% shared equity for a period of 4 years after which it reverts to the original affordable housing obligation, such modification only relating to those dwellings completed within that period

A proposal for refusal was put forward by Cllr Northcott and seconded by Cllr Mancey.

Resolved:

That the application be refused on the following grounds:

1)    That the development is unsustainable and that it is not justified in this location,

2)    That it would be harmful to the  landscape, and

3)    That it would be detrimental to residential amenity in the locality.

Resolved:

A proposal for refusal was put forward by Cllr Hambleton and seconded by Cllr Fear.

That the application be refused on the following grounds:

1)            The site could not accommodate 8 dwellings without detriment to residential amenity and the appearance of the area, and

2)            The application is not accompanied as is required by the NPPF by adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, to enable the LPA to judge whether the site is suitable for residential use taking into account land stability

Resolved:

That the application be permitted subject to conditions relating to:

1.    Standard time limit

2.    Approved plans

3.    Materials as per approved plans and application form

4.    Removal of permitted development rights for extensions, outbuildings and hardstandings

5.    Soft landscaping scheme to include full details of boundary treatments

6.    Completion of access, parking and turning areas prior to occupation

7.    Access/ entrance walls have been provided to a maximum height of 900mm

8.    Surface water drainage interceptor rear of the highway

Resolved:

That Tree Preservation Order No 166 (2015), Land north of LWC Drinks Ltd, West Avenue Kidsgrove, be confirmed as made and that the owners of the site be informed accordingly.

Resolved:

That Planning Committee note that reports on applications, whether to the Committee or to the decision taker where a decisions being made under delegated powers will not include a section on local finance considerations unless:-

(a)       The applicant, or third parties, refer in their submissions to New Homes Bonus (NHB), non-domestic domestic rate, Council tax or any other local finance considerations in support of the application, and the weight that can be given will then be addressed within the key issues or discussion section of the report; or

(b)       Such a time arises when NHB, non-domestic domestic rate or Council tax is spent by the Council in a manner which is directly connected to the development and contributes towards making that development acceptable. 

Resolved:

1.         That internal management procedures within the Service including the assessment of case officers’ recommendations by more senior officers continue to be applied;

2.         That your Officer report to the Chair and Vice Chairman in six months time on appeal performance in the first half of the 2015/16, and on any further steps that have been taken in the light of that performance;

3.         That the Committee reaffirms its previous resolution that its Members of the Committee draw to Case Officers’ attention any concerns that they have with an application, coming to the Committee for determination, as soon as possible having received notice of the application in the weekly list, so that potential solutions to the concerns are sought with the applicant in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework;

4.         That the Committee reaffirms its previous resolution that full advantage be taken of the use of conditions in planning permissions to make developments acceptable;

5.         That the Committee reaffirms its previous resolutions that Members of the Committee proposing to move refusal of a proposal contrary to recommendation be urged to contact the Head of Planning  no less than 24 hours before the Committee, with details of the reasons they are minded to give for such a refusal;

6.         That the Committee reaffirms its previous resolution that when a proposal to refuse to grant planning permission is made at the Committee contrary to the officer’s recommendation, advice be sought as to the most appropriate way to meet the requirement to work in a proactive and positive manner with applicants;

7.         That the Committee reaffirms its previous resolutions that the mover and seconder of a resolution of refusal contrary to officer recommendation be identified by the Chair and recorded and in the event of an appeal being lodged there be an expectation that those members will make themselves available as witnesses on behalf of the Council in the appeal proceedings should either the Head of Planning  or the   deem that appropriate; and

8.         That the Committee reaffirm its previous resolutions that a proactive approach be taken by officers to appeal handling with early holding of case conferences where appropriate, the strength of the case being continually reassessed in the light of any new evidence received, and that in the case of matters being determined by means of public inquiries the Head of Business Improvement, Central Services & Partnerships or his representative takes charge of the matter.

9.         That the Committee receive additional and enhanced planning and committee training.

Resolved:

a)         That the report be noted

b)         That the Head of Planning and Development continue to report on a half yearly basis to the Planning Committee on planning obligations which have been secured over the preceding six months, works that have been funded during that period in whole or in part by planning obligations and compliance with their requirements

Resolved:                  

1.    That the report be received

2.    That a further update be provided alongside the next quarterly monitoring report on cases where enforcement action has been authorised.

Resolved:

That the information be received.

Application for a Major Development - land at Junction of Shelton Boulevard and Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke on Trent; Regeneration and Greene King LTD. 348/223

Resolved:

That the City Council be advised that the Borough Council objects to the application on the following grounds:

That the proposal involves Class A1 (retail) floorspace, a main town centre use as identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), in this out of centre location.  Furthermore the applicant has not demonstrated, through the submitted sequential assessment, that the proposed development cannot be located within Newcastle on the site of the former Sainsbury’s store on Ryecroft which is available within a reasonable time frame.

To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item(s) because it is likely that there will be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved:

That the public be excluded