Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors’ Fear, Proctor, White and Wright.

There were no declarations of interest stated.

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

Resolved:                 That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November, 2017 be agreed as a correct record.

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

(i)            The proposed development, because of its isolated location away from a higher level of services, employment and public transport links, would mean that residents would be dependent on the use of private motor vehicles. The development of this greenfield site would not materially enhance or maintain the viability of a rural community in a significant way and is considered to be an unsustainable form of development.  Notwithstanding that the Council cannot demonstrate an up to date 5 year plus 20% supply of deliverable housing sites, there is no presumption in favour of the proposal. For these reasons the proposed development is contrary to the requirements and guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). It would also create a precedent for the consideration of similar proposals around the village envelope of Ashley.

(ii)          The adverse impacts of the development, namely the reliance on the use of private motor vehicles and the extension of built development into the open countryside would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits of the development when assessed against the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) taken as a whole and the proposal therefore represents an unsustainable development.

(iii)         In the absence of a secured planning obligation, the development fails to make an appropriate contribution towards the provision of affordable housing which is required to provide a balanced and well-functioning housing market, as referred to in the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2009) and the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Supplementary Planning Document on Development Contributions (2007). The proposal would thus be contrary to Policies CSP6 and CSP10 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026, Policy IM1 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011, and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

(iv)         In the absence of a secured planning obligation and having regard to the likely additional pupils arising from the development and the capacity of existing educational provision in the area, the development fails to make an appropriate contribution towards education provision as referred to in the Staffordshire County Council Education Planning Obligations Policy (November 2003, as subsequently updated) and the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Supplementary Planning Document on Development Contributions (2007). For this reason the proposal would fail to provide a sustainable form of development and would be contrary to Policy CSP10 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026, Policy IM1 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011, and the aims and  objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Resolved:     That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned

                        conditions:

(i)            Variation of condition (ii) to reflect the revised drawings.

(ii)          Any other conditions of 14/00736/FUL as continue to apply to the development.

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

(i)            Variation of condition 57 stating that the highway works, as detailed on the General Arrangement Drawing number CDD0039/R01/01 Rev C0 is hereby approved.

(ii)          All other conditions attached to planning permission 06/01180/OUT that have not already been discharged.

Resolved:     That Cheshire East Council be informed that the Borough Council has no objections to the application.

Resolved:     That Cheshire East Council be informed that the Borough Council has no objections to the application.

Councillor Beech spoke on this application.

Proposed by Councillor Tagg and seconded by Councillor Heesom.

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

There would be an adverse impact on the residential amenity of

the occupiers of adjacent dwellings including those under construction.

Proposed by Councillor Hambleton and seconded by Councillor Tagg.

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

                        The proposed additional opening hours of the restaurant and

drive-thru facility would result in an unacceptable and harmful impact to the living conditions and quality of life of the occupiers of no. 279 Dimsdale Parade West and the amenity of the area in general by virtue of unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance which would be contrary to the guidance and requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Councillor Owen left the room during discussion of the following item.

Proposed by Councillor Holland and seconded by Councillor Tagg.

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

(i)            The scale, form and appearance of the development

 scheme is out of keeping with its immediate

 surroundings and is visually detrimental to Bunny Hill

and the prevailing form and character of the local area.

(ii)           The development, due to its scale and position, would

have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties by virtue of being overbearing.

Resolved:     That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned

                        conditions:   

(i)            Time limit relating to the commencement of development.

(ii)          Approved Plans.

(iii)         Prior approval of any external lighting.

(iv)         Prior approval of any boundary treatment/means of enclosure of the menage

(v)          Non-commercial use only

(vi)         Prior approval of jumps or similar features.

(vii)        Submission of a contaminated land verification report.

Resolved:     (i)         That the report be received.

(ii)          Head of Planning with the Development Management Team Leader seeks to maintain performance of the Development Management team where satisfactory and improve the service provided where our level of performance falls significantly below the targets set out in the Planning Service Plan for 2017/18.

(iii)         The next ‘Development Management Performance Report’ be submitted to Committee around June 2018 reporting on performance for the complete year 2017/18

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  Section 106 obligations.

Resolved:                       (i)         That the findings of the Survey for buildings

found to be “at risk” accepted and it was agreed that the Conservation Officer and other officers work with owners and their agents to get these buildings removed from the At Risk Register.

(ii)          That the Conservation Officer and other officers work with owners and their agents for those buildings identified from the Survey as buildings “requiring monitoring” to stop them worsening and becoming “At Risk”.

(iii)         That officers undertake a survey of all of statutorily Listed Buildings every 5 years or as resources permit and that the survey is updated as necessary if individual buildings are removed from the list or new ones are identified as “at risk”

(iv)         That the list of Buildings at Risk in the Borough is published on the Council’s website

(v)          That the Conservation Officer be thanked for an excellent report 

CONSULTATION - FORMER MMU ALSAGER CAMPUS SITE. DAVID WILSON HOMES.  17/5557C  348/249

This is considered urgent as the last date for consultations falls before the date of the next Planning Committee.

FORMER MMU ALSAGER CAMPUS SITE. 17/5778C  348/249

Resolved:     That Cheshire East to be informed that the Borough Council has

                        no objections to this application.

8 Barford Road  Appeal and Sn106 position - 17/00483/FUL

This item is considered urgent as there is another application for the same property on this agenda.

8 Barford Road  Appeal and S106 - 17/00483/FUL

Resolved:           (i)         That,With respect to the appeal against the

decision on 17/00483/FUL that Officers to now write to the appellant to confirm that the obligation referred to in the recommendation that was provided to the Planning Committee on 12^th September is required by the Local Planning Authority;

(ii)          That, `In preparing the Council’s Statement of Case with respect to 17/00483/FUL, officers include reference to the above requirement; and

(iii)         That, should the appellant seek before the appeal against the decision on 17/00483/FUL is determined to enter into a Section 106 agreement with the Council containing such an obligation, officers have the appropriate authority to enter into such an agreement.

(iv)         That in the event of an appeal being lodged against the refusal of 17/00878/FUL the same position be taken with respect to that appeal as set out in (a), (b) and (c) above