Agenda and minutes

Councillors Becket, Proctor and Welsh declared an interest in Item 16 –

Madeley War Memorial.

Councillor Mrs Hambleton declared an interest in Item 7 – Kestrel Drive,

Loggerheads and left the room during the debate.

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

Resolved:    That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 March, 2015 be agreed as a correct record.

Councillor Nigel Jones spoke on this application.

Resolved:      (i)     That, subject to the applicant first entering

into a planning obligation by 7 May 2015 securing

an public open space contribution of £2404 per

dwelling for expenditure on Queen Elizabeth Park

only, and subject to the receipt of legal advice confirming that it would not be unlawful having regard to Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, as amended, to issue such a decision after the 5 April, the application be approved subject to the

undermentioned conditions:

1. Plans / time limit

2. Approval of reserved matters

3. Reserved matters to accord with Design

   and Access Statement

4. Accommodation to be  one or two     bedroomed

   flats

5. Levels and height of development

6. Highways matters

7. Contaminated land remediation

8. Construction hours

9. Construction management details- inducing mud

   and dust mitigation

       10. Internal and external noise levels for the new

  dwellings

11. Waste storage and collection

12. Tree protection measures

13. Surface water and foul sewage drainage.

                                (ii)    That, should the obligation not be secured within

the above period, the Head of Planning be

authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that without such ,matters being secured the development would be contrary to policy on open space provision; unless he considers it appropriate to extend the period for completion of the obligation.

(iii)      Only in the event of legal advice being received  which indicates that the issuing of a permission after 5 April would be unlawful, the application be brought back to the next available committee for reconsideration.

Councillor Simon Tagg spoke on this application.

Resolved:               That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(i)              By virtue of the intensity of the proposed use, specifically the numbers of occupants and their associated movements, it would be detrimental to the character of the Brampton Conservation Area.

(ii)            The applicant has not demonstrated in the submitted plans or accompanying documents and management details that this change of use application will not conflict with nearby uses or damage local amenity and accordingly will not conflict with Policy H6 of the Newcastle Local Plan.

(iii)           The proposal conflicts with paragraph 69 of the NPPF which states that planning decisions should aim to achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life.

Resolved:               That the application be permitted subject to the

undermentioned conditions:

1.    Plans / time limit

2.    Approval of reserved matters

3.    Full and precise details of the finished floor levels

4.    Details of vehicle and pedestrian visibility splays, and  location and opening of any access gates to be provided in any reserved matters application

5.    Sample facing and roofing materials, sample hardstanding materials, and boundary treatments

6.    Submission of tree protection plan, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement, and

7.    Waste recycling storage and collection arrangement

8.    Removal of dwellinghouse permitted development rights.

9.    Upon completion of the development, the use of Redgates shall be limited to the provision of accommodation for the applicant’s mother for the duration of her life.

Resolved:               That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:

1.       Standard time limit;

2.    Approved plans;

3.    Approval of reserved matters;

4.    Prior approval of external facing materials;

5.    Replacement tree planting;

6.    Tree protection measures and arboricultural method statement ;

7.    Highway matters.

Resolved:               That the application be permitted subject to the

undermentioned conditions:

(i)             Commencement of the development

(ii)            Plans referred to in consent

(iii)           Materials to be utilised (hard landscaping, facing and roofing materials)

(iv)          External lighting.

(v)           Means of storing and disposing of stable wastes

(vi)          Surfacing of the access

(vii)         Parking and turning areas

(viii)        Non commercial use only

(ix)          No storage, as opposed to parking when visiting, of horse boxes and similar

(x)           No jumps and similar features without prior approval.

Resolved:              That the application be permitted subject to the

undermentioned conditions:

(i)             Plans referred to in consent

(ii)            External lighting

(iii)           Means of storing and disposing of stable wastes

(iv)          Non commercial use only

(v)           No storage, as opposed to parking when visiting, of horse boxes and similar

(vi)          No jumps and similar features without prior approval.

(vii)         Approval of a landscaping scheme to include native planting.

Councillor Trevor Hambleton spoke on this application.

Resolved:               That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(i)              As a result of the development the car parking provision on site would be significantly less than the maximum standards for a five bedroom dwelling therefore the development could create a local on street parking or traffic problem to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policy T16 of the Newcastle under Lyme Local Plan.

(ii)            The  extension would be an overdevelopment of the building, of poor design and not in keeping with the surrounding area.

Resolved:                  

(i)             That with respect to the application made  for Class MB (a) development  prior approval (of the Authority) with respect to the change of use is not required as to the transport and highway impacts; the noise impacts,; the flooding risks or as to whether the location or siting of the building make it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change to a dwelling

(ii)            Prior approval (of the Authority) is required as to the contamination risks on the site and it is granted, without condition

(iii)           That with respect to the application made  for Class MB(b) development  prior approval (of the Authority)  is required as to the design or external appearance of the building and is granted subject to a condition requiring,  the design of the building to incorporate the corbelling feature that is on the existing building

Councillor John Taylor spoke on this application.

Resolved:               That the application be refused for the following reason:

The demolition of the building would be detrimental to the overall character and appearance of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation, would not result in any public benefit and it has not been demonstrated that the building is incapable of beneficial use and as such it is contrary to policy.        

Resolved:               (i)       That prior approval is required.

                               (ii)       That the application be permitted.

Resolved:               That the decision and officer comments be noted.

Resolved:               That the decision and officer comments be noted.         

Resolved:                       (i)       That a grant of £5000 for the repair of the

south aisle roof of St James’ Church, Audley be approved subject to the appropriate standard conditions.

(ii)       That a grant of £180 for the repair of Madeley War Memorial and reinstatement of the bayonet on that memorial be approved subject to the appropriate standard conditions.

Resolved:              (i)       That the report be noted.

(ii)       That the Head of Planning continue to report on a quarterly basis on the exercise of his authority to extend the period of time for an applicant to enter into the Section 106 obligations.

Consideration was given to a report advising Members on the changes to the thresholds for Section 106 Obligations.

Resolved:               That the changes be noted and be applied by the Committee when making decisions on planning applications.  

Report will be sent to follow.

Resolved:                         That Cheshire East and Staffordshire County Council be advised that whilst the Borough Council does not object to the application, it asks that:

(i)             Consideration be given to both the required improvement of the Newcastle Road / Four Lane Ends junction of the A531 with the B5500, and to the potential impact of the development on the wider highway network within the Borough (and that Staffordshire County Council be asked to take this wider impact into account when it responds to Cheshire East).

(ii)            That in the event of planning permission being granted, use of the A531 to the south of the access point into the development, by construction-related traffic be prevented by use of either an appropriated condition or planning obligation, in order to protect both highway safety and residential amenity within the villages through which such traffic would otherwise pass.

(iii)           That the prediction in the Transport Assessment that there would be , consequent upon the development,  a drop (relative to existing) in a.m. peak trip rates exiting from the site in a southerly direction into Staffordshire, needs justification, as do all other figures of predicted flows to or from the south.

(iv)          That in view of this and other permitted and planned developments in South Crewe all having an adverse effect on traffic levels within the adjoining part of Staffordshire, the Council asks Cheshire East and Staffordshire to prepare a joint traffic plan for the area.

(v)           That the two authorities (Cheshire East and Staffordshire County Council) be asked to work with government to remove any legal blocks on the construction of an appropriate junction at Junction 16 that would provide a more attractive route towards the North Staffordshire conurbation, than use of the B5500 and the A531.

Consideration was given to a report regarding procedures for public speaking, site visits and call-in withdrawal, following the Action Plan arising from the Planning Peer Review.  The following observations / comments were made:

Public speaking, or Direct Representation to Planning Committee, arrangements

a)      Should all live applications that come before the Planning Committee be subject to the right to request to speak ? – The existing policy was confirmed by the Committee  as appropriate–  if following an initial determination of an application (by the Committee) it comes back to the Committee, there is no opportunity provided to objectors or supporters to address the Planning Committee

b)      Should public speaking be invited when subsequent to a grant of permission, an informal request say to reconsider Section 106 requirements is considered by the Committee ?–  The existing policy of not providing such an opportunity was confirmed by Committee

c)       Should Parish and Town Councils be able to address the Planning Committee in their own right – The  existing  policy of not providing such an opportunity was confirmed by the Committee

d)      Should County Councillors have the right to address the Planning Committee – the Committee considered that the policy did not provide this right, and agreed that for the avoidance of any doubt the policy should be clarified to make the position even clearer, by referring to “Borough Councillors for the ward where the application has been made”

e)      Should public speaking be allowed when the Borough Council is only a consultee? – The Committee confirmed  that no public speaking should be permitted in such circumstances, and that revised policy should expressly state this

f)        Does it matter if two speakers “share” a  speaking slot ? – The committee considered that it does not matter

g)       If the number of speakers increases, beyond 3, should there be a related reduction in the length of time each is permitted to speak ?  - The Committee  did not agree to such a proposal

h)      The current arrangement does not permit Members of the Committee to ask questions of any of the speakers. Is there a wish to change this? – The Committee did not agree to such a change

Site visit procedures and voting on applications which have been the subject of a site visit protocol

a)      The Committee agreed to the proposal that the site visit protocol be amended to indicate that Parish Councils are to be invited to send an observer to any site visit called in their area

b)      The Committee agreed to the proposal that site visit protocol be amended to indicate that local members who are not on the Planning  Committee should be informed of site visits in their area and invited to attend as observers

c)       The Committee agreed (upon a vote ( 6 for / 4 against) that  when an application subject to  a site visit is brought to the Planning Committee for determination Members who did not attend the site visit shall neither  be eligible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

There was no Urgent Business.