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 21 June, 2022 be agreed as a correct record.

Amended recommendation proposed by Councillor Holland and seconded by Councillor Fear.

There were many reservations regarding this application regarding the proposed changing to a five storey building and the visual impact that it would have on the town centre.

It was felt that the building, in terms of its size and massing would have an overbearing impact on St Giles Church and also on the Conservation Area.

Questions were also raised regarding waste management collections and also the short stay area for deliveries.  In such a large building, occupied by many students there could potentially be several deliveries throughout the day.  In addition, there were concerns regarding insufficient parking and the lack of parking provision for the disabled.

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

(i)            By reason of its excessive height, scale and massing and its inappropriate design, the upward extension of the building would be overly prominent in views within and into the Newcastle Town Centre Conservation Area resulting in substantial harm to its character and appearance. The public benefits of the development would not outweigh the substantial harm and the development would therefore be contrary to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026, saved Policies B9, B10 and B14 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011, the aims and objectives of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document, and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

(ii)          The proposed development, by reason of its excessive height, scale and massing and its inappropriate design, would result in overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area at this important gateway into the town centre. 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 paragraphs 126 and 130.

(iii)         The lack of car parking provision within the site for the use of people with disabilities would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of those occupiers, and 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.

Watch the debate here

This item includes a supplementary report.

Resolved:     That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned

                        conditions:

(i)            Variation of condition 2 to list the revised plans,

(ii)           Variation of Condition 15 to refer to revised drainage

details, and

(iii)          Any other conditions attached to planning permission

20/01047/FUL that remain relevant at this time.

Watch the debate here

This item includes a supplementary report for Maer Village Hall

Resolved:     That the following grants be approved:-

(i)            £ 3,423 Historic Building Grant be given towards external

stonework repairs and roof repairs to Maer Village Hall.

(ii)           £ 5,000 Historic Building Grant to be given towards roof

repairs and window repairs at St James Church Hall,

Audley.

Watch the debate here

To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972

5 Boggs Cottages, Keele.  14/00036/207C3

This had been brought as an urgent item following the postponement of the appeal due to be held on 12 July and a new date set

At a previous meeting, a request had been made to update members on the outcome of the appeal hearing on 12 July.

Unfortunately, due to the appellant suffering ill health, the hearing was postponed and the Planning Inspectorate had set a new date of 31 January, 2023.

Members were advised that officers would be responding to the offer, seeking an earlier date.

The Chair was disappointed with the new date offer and asked that the Council’s Chief Executive in conjunction with the Interim Head of Planning write to the Planning Inspectorate expressing profound disappointment at the way in which the Authority had been treated.

Councillor Fear, the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning felt it would be worthwhile to include Members representations.  Officers had had a lot of time wasted by this and there had been 5 postponements of this and the proposed new date was insulting.

Resolved:     That a letter be sent, expressing disappointment, to the Planning

Inspectorate and that it be signed by the Chief Executive, Interim Head of Planning, the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning.

Watch the debate here