Agenda and minutes

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 6 January, 2022 be agreed as a correct record.

Resolved:     (A).      That, subject to the applicant first entering into a Section

106 obligation by the 11^th March 2022 to secure a review mechanism of the scheme’s ability to make a more or fully policy compliant financial contribution towards public open space/ public realm and/ or the provision of affordable housing, if the development is not substantially commenced within 12 months from the date of the decision, and the provision of such affordable housing and payment of an appropriate financial contribution, if then found financially viable,

the application be permitted, subject to the undermentioned conditions:

(i)            Standard time limit for commencement of

development;

(ii)           Approved plans;

(iii)          Brick samples;

(iv)          Roofing materials and mansard roof details;

(v)           Depth of window reveals;

(vi)          Plant and machinery;

(vii)        Fume extraction details;

(viii)       External lighting scheme;

(ix)          Provision of basement car parking prior to

occupation;

(x)       Car park management scheme;

(xi)          Cycle storage provision;

(xii)        Construction environmental management plan;

(xiii)       Electric vehicle charging provision;

(xiv)       Construction and demolition hours;

(xv)        Noise and ventilation mitigation measures;

(xvi)       Provision of security measures; and

(xvii)      Waste collection arrangements.

(B).      Should the matters referred to in (A) above not be secured

within the above period, then the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application on the grounds that without such matters being secured the development would fail to secure sustainable development objectives, or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which the obligation can be secured.

Watch the debate here

Amended recommendation proposed by Councillor Mark Holland and seconded by Councillor John Williams

Councillor Stephen Sweeney spoke on this application

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

The proposed development, by reason of the overdevelopment and intensification of the site, would result in a poor quality design that would be harmful to the character and setting of the area whilst also being detrimental to how the site functions for future occupiers; in particular with regards to providing parking that addresses the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility and providing suitable access to enable waste and recycling to be presented for collection. As such, the development is contrary to Policy CSP1 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026, the guidance set out in the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2010 and the requirements and policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, in particular paragraph 130.

Watch the debate here

Resolved:     That the information be received.

Members were advised that the costs decision was the most noteworthy. 

Resolved:     That the appeal and costs decision be noted.

Watch the debate here

There was no Urgent Business.