Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Boden, Howells and Jones.

To receive Declarations of Interest from Members on items included on the agenda.

Councillor Stringer declared an interest in planning application 12/00395/FUL indicating that his wife was employed by the applicant.

To consider the minutes of the previous meetings held on 19 June and 10 July 2012.

Resolved:-   That the minutes of the meetings held on 19 June and 10 July 2012 be approved as correct records subject to the addition of Councillor Baker’s name to the list of apologies for the meeting held on 10 July 2012.

Resolved:-   That permission be granted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-

(i)         No opening of the store to the public other than between 08:00 and 22:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 10:00 and 16:00 hours on Sundays, other than on Sundays falling between 22 July 2012 and 9 September 2012 when there shall be no opening of the store to the public other than between the hours of 10:00 and 18:00 hours.

(ii)        All other conditions attached to planning permission 12/00245/FUL shall remain.

Resolved:-   That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to the following:-

(i)         The opening times of the store shall be limited between 07:00 hours and 22:00 hours Monday to Saturday and no more than 6 hours between 09:00 hours and 18:00 hours on Sundays except on Sundays between 22 July 2012 and 9 September 2012 when there shall be no opening of the store to the public other than between 09:00 and 20:00 hours.

(ii)        Other conditions in permission 96/00178/FUL and 97/00868/FUL to continue to apply.

Resolved:-   That the application be refused on the grounds that the development has resulted in a loss of public amenity and is contrary to good planning which seeks to ensure permeability, connectivity and accessibility to facilities including shops, play areas, schools and other services and to encourage use of non-motor car modes of travel, and is contrary to the principles set out within the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document.  No substantive evidence has been provided to support concerns that the opening of the link would cause such problems of crime and disorder as to justify closure of the link.

The Committee was invited to make formal comments on the above application that was to be considered by Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

Comments were required to be submitted by not later than 22 August 2012.

Resolved:-   That Stoke-on-Trent City Council be advised that this Council wishes to re-affirm its previous objection to the application.  The proposal involves large scale Class B1(a) office floorspace, a main town centre use as identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in this out of centre location.  Furthermore, the application has not demonstrated, through the sequential assessment, that the proposed office development cannot be located within, or on the edge, of Newcastle Town Centre.

Reference was made to the Committee’s earlier consideration, of planning application SOT/53546/VAR.

In this latest report it now appeared to the officers that the Committee’s earlier resolution to ask the Secretary of State to modify the permission so as to restrict the use of the unit to non-food retailers was unduly cautious and that it would be more appropriate to ask the Secretary of State to instead impose a condition that no more than 10% of the sales area of the extended store be used for the display and retailing of ancillary bulky goods such as soft furnishings and textiles.

Resolved:-   That the Head of Planning and Development be now authorised to write to the Secretary of State asking that he use his powers under Section 100 to modify planning permission SOT/46524 so as to include a condition restricting the use of the unit in the same manner as was done in the 1992 permission, whilst allowing for no more than 10% of the sales areas of the building to be used for display and retailing of ancillary non-bulky goods such as soft furnishings and textiles.

Resolved:-   (a)       That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

(i)         Inappropriate development in, and harmful to, the Green Belt, and the required very special circumstances do not exist to justify a permission.

(ii)        No appropriate mechanism has been put forward with the application submission to secure affordable housing in perpetuity.

                        (b)       That in respect of resolution (a) (i) the Head of Planning and Development, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee, be authorised to agree the detailed wording.

Resolved:-   That permission be granted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-

(i)         Standard time limit.

(ii)        Approved plans.

(iii)       Approval of facing materials/boundary treatments.

(iv)       Removal of permitted development rights.

(v)        Highway conditions relating to access and parking.

(vi)       Contaminated land condition.

(vii)      Control over the importation of soil/material.

(viii)     Approval of finished ground and slab levels.

Resolved:-   That permission be granted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-

(i)         Standard time limit.

(ii)        Approved plan.

(iii)       Materials as detailed in the application.

(iv)       Permission shall enure for the benefit of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council only.

Resolved:-   That permission be granted subject to the undermentioned conditions:-

(i)         Standard time limit.

(ii)        Approved plans.

(iii)       Materials to match existing unless specified.

(iv)       Restriction of side first floor windows and velux windows to obscure glazing and top hinged or non-opening.

(v)        The car parking area should be of a bound porous material.

Having previously approved a draft of the above Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for consultation purposes, the Committee considered a further report advising of the outcome of that process and detailing the contents of the final draft of the SPD prior to it being placed on deposit for representations and subsequent submission to Cabinet for adoption.

Resolved:-   (a)       That subject to no representations being received on the Supplementary Planning Document seeking significant changes the Planning Committee commend the Madeley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan SPD to Cabinet for adoption with no changes.

                        (b)       That should any representations be received seeking minor changes, the officers be given delegated authority to make such changes, if appropriate, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee prior to the submission of the document to Cabinet for adoption.

Ref 12/13001/HBG

Consideration was given to an application for financial assistance from the Conservation and Heritage Fund towards the cost of re-instating windows on the gable elevation at the above building that was of special architectural and historic interest.

The works were estimated to cost £1225.

Resolved:-   That a grant of £245 be awarded for the above works at Old School Hall subject to the appropriate standard conditions.

Consideration was given to a report seeking the Committee’s approval for a grant to be offered to the owner of the above premises.

The grant could be used towards the cost of the implementation of works that may be included in any subsequent Urgent Works Notice, if one was found to be necessary, and which were now eligible for assistance following the Committee’s earlier resolution to amend the terms of conditions relating to the award of grants from the Fund.

Resolved:-   That a grant of whichever is the lesser element – 20% of the cost or up to £10,000 – towards the cost of the urgent works at the above property be made subject to the production by the owner of two competitive guides in accordance with terms and conditions of the Historic Buildings Fund.

Consideration was given to a quarterly report providing an update on occasions when the Head of Planning and Development had used his delegated powers to extend the time limits, previously allowed by the Committee, for the completion of Section 106 Obligations, as an alternative to refusing the application.

Resolved:-   (a)       That the report be received.

                        (b)       That the Head of Planning and Development 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, and of any similar decisions made by the Chair and Vice-Chair.