Agenda and minutes

The Chair declared an interest in item 6.  Land at Bath Road, Silverdale – As a member of the Aspire Board.

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

Resolved:              That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 November, 2024 be agreed as a correct record.

Members had a long debate on this item raising concerns on the design of the building and the cumulative impact on the highways in terms of parking.

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

                                          (i)             The proposed development, by reason of its excessive

height and its inappropriate design, would result in overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

                                        (ii)             Given the very limited car parking provision within the site,

the significant additional on-street parking demand that is likely to be created by the development would lead to an exacerbation of congestion and related harm to highway safety on streets in the vicinity of the development.

                                       (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.

Watch the debate here

Councillors’ Jill Whitmore and Amanda Berrisford spoke on this application

Councillor Berrisford declared a prejudicial interest in the application through business interests with the landowner.

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

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

106 agreement by 31^st January 2025 to secure the following:

·       £1,205,288.00 towards school spaces

·       £138,968 towards primary care facilities

·       £6,000 towards Travel Plan Monitoring

·       30% onsite affordable housing

·       Long-term maintenance of the open space on the site

·       If required, financial contribution towards off-site public open space.

The application be permitted, subject to the

undermentioned conditions:

(i)                   Standard time limits for submission of reserved

matters and commencement of development

(ii)                  Approved plans and supporting documents

(iii)                Reserved matters submission to comply with the

principles of the Design and Access Statement

(iv)                Drainage design

(v)                  Visibility splays

(vi)                Offsite highway works

(vii)               Travel Plan

(viii)             Construction Environment Management Plan

(ix)                Unexpected land contamination

(x)                  Noise mitigation measures

(xi)                Tree and hedgerow protection measures

(xii)               Arboricultural Method Statement

(xiii)             Archaeological investigation

(xiv)             Biodiversity and ecology enhancement measures

(xv)              Detailed Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment and

Plan

(xvi)             Approval of details of play facilities and timing of

provision of open space and these facilities

(xvii)           Mineral Recovery Plan

(B)      That, should the Section 106 obligations 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 be acceptable in planning terms and would not achieve sustainable development outcomes; or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which the obligations can be secured.

Watch the debate here

This item includes a supplementary report.

Resolved:    (A)      That, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106

obligation by 31^st January 2025 to secure the provision of off-site Biodiversity Net Gain on an alternative site within the borough,

the application be permitted, subject to the undermentioned conditions:

(i)               Time limit

(ii)              Approved plans

(iii)            Materials, boundary treatment and hard surfacing

details

(iv)            Landscaping scheme

(v)              Hours of construction

(vi)            Construction management plan

(vii)           Access, parking, turning areas and relocated

lighting columns in accordance with submitted plans

(viii)         Reinstatement of footway

(ix)            Visibility splays

(x)              Relocation of bus stop

(xi)            Tree protection

(xii)           Levels

(xiii)         Contamination

(xiv)         Recommendations of Preliminary Ecology

Appraisal

(xv)          Installation of bat boxes

(xvi)         Remedial stabilisation works

(xvii)       Drainage details

(xviii)      Affordable Housing

(B)      That, should the Section 106 obligation 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 be acceptable in planning terms; or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which the obligations can be secured.

Watch the debate here

Councillor Northcott returned to the Chair

This item includes a supplementary report.

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

(I)               Approved plans

(II)             Replacement tree planting

(III)           Any other conditions which are still relevant to the original

decision 

Watch the debate here

Revised recommendation proposed by Councillor Heesom and seconded by Councillor Crisp

Members raised concerns on the parking provision.

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

                    Given the limited car parking provision within the site, the

significant on-street parking demand that is likely to be created by the development would lead to an exacerbation of congestion and related harm to highway safety on streets in the vicinity of the development.

Watch the debate here

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

(i)              Standard time limit

(ii)             Approved plans

(iii)           New roofing materials to be dark/recessive in colour

Watch the debate here

Resolved:    That the application be permitted subject to the following:

(i)              Standard advertisement conditions

Watch the debate here

Consideration was given to a report in connection with a non-determination appeal  at land south of Eccleshall Road, Loggerheads.

Members were asked if they agreed with the officers arguments in proposing refusal of the application as set out in the report. 

Resolved:    That the report be accepted.

Watch the debate here

This item includes a supplementary report.

Resolved:    That the following grant be approved: -

£5,000 Historic Building Grant be given towards conservation repairs at St Margarets Primary School, Wolstanton

Watch the debate here

Resolved:    (i)       That the information be received

(ii)      That an update report be brought to committee in two months’ time

Watch the debate here

The Chair asked that it be moved to extend the guillotine for the meeting and to aim to have all business completed by 10.30pm.  This was agreed

Resolved:    That the information be received

Watch the debate here

There was no Urgent Business.

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.

There were no confidential items.