Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies.

Councillor Dave Jones declared pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests respectively on items 5 and 7, applications 20/01083/FUL and 20/01076/FUL.  As an employee of Keele University, Councillor Jones would not take part in any discussion or decision making on these items.

Councillor Jennifer Cooper declared non-pecuniary interests in items 5 and 7, applications 20/01083/FUL and 20/01076/FUL as an employee of Keele University.  Councillor Cooper would be able to take part in the decision making process on both of the applications.

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

Resolved:                 That the minutes of the meetings held on 5 January and 2 February, 2021 be agreed as correct records.

Councillor Jennifer Cooper moved the addition of a condition regarding prior approval of security measures.  This was seconded by Councillor Paul Northcott.

Resolved:                 (A).      That, subject to the receipt of no objections from the

Lead Local Flood Authority by the date of the Committee meeting that cannot be overcome through the imposition of conditions or, if no comments are received by that date, the Head of Planning being given the delegated authority to determine the application after the 2nd March 2021 upon receipt and consideration of the Lead Local Flood Authority comments, and

(B).      Subject to the applicant first entering into a Section

106 obligation by the 16th April 2021 to secure a travel plan monitoring fee of £2,443, the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:

(i)            Standard time limit for commencement of

Development

(ii)        Approved plans

(ii)          Soft landscaping scheme, to include

replacement tree planting

(iv)       Tree protection measures

(v)       Provision of access, parking, servicing and turning areas

(vi)       Visibility splays

(vii)      Surfacing materials, surface water drainage

and delineation of the parking spaces and

servicing areas

(viii)     Access barrier

(ix)       Secure, weatherproof parking for 12 cycles

(x)        Implementation of Travel Plan

(xi)       Construction Management Plan

(xii)      Construction hours

(xiii)     External lighting

(xiv)     Contaminated land

(xv)      Electric vehicle charging provision

(xvi)     Flood risk mitigation measures and

Sustainable Drainage Strategy

(xvii)    Land contamination investigations and mitigation measures

(xviii)   Bat and Bird Boxes

(xix)     Recommendations of the Preliminary

Ecological Appraisal

(xx)      Prior approval of security measures.

(C)       Should the matters referred to in (B) 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.

This item includes a supplementary report.

Councillor Dave Jones took no part in the discussion and did not vote on this application.

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

obligation by 2nd April 2021 that preserves the Council’s position in respect of obligations secured prior to the grant of permission 18/01011/FUL, the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:

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

(ii)        Variation of condition 8 to require the landscaping

to be carried out in accordance with the approved

details within 12 months of the commencement of the development and to require replacement of any planting that dies or becomes seriously damaged within 5 years.

(iii)       Any other conditions attached to planning

permission 18/01011/FUL that remain relevant at this time.

(B).      Failing completion by the date referred to in the above

resolution (A) of the above planning obligation, that the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to either refuse the planning application on the grounds that without such an obligation the development would fail to secure measures to ensure that the development achieves sustainable development outcomes; or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time

within which the obligation can be secured.

Councillor Helena Maxfield moved refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Paul Northcott

The Council’s Development Management Team Manager, Elaine Moulton clarified that the height of the two proposed garages would be close to 7 meters to ridge height, which compared to the building to be demolished which had a ridge height of 4.2 meters.  In terms of the footprint, the proposed garages had a much smaller one. The volume of the building lost was 840m3 compared to the garages which would have 440m3 volume.

Reference was made by the agent to the inclusion of a condition for a Construction Management Plan.  This was not recommended by the Environmental Health Division but did recommend that a construction hours condition be imposed.  Such a condition would be an appropriate one to impose if Members wished to include it. 

Councillor Maxfield had no issue with bringing existing buildings back into use but had an issue with the height of the proposed garages in relation to the buildings to be converted.  If the garage was to be the same height as the house, there was concern with regard to what it could be developed into in the future.  Councillor Maxfield also asked for reassurance that the public footpath would remain in operation during and after construction.

Councillor John Williams had concerns that the new build was coming right onto the public footpath and would like the footpath to remain open during construction.  In addition, Councillor Williams queried what materials would be used.  Elaine Moulton confirmed that the Dutch barn was of  a brick construction and weathered large cladding would be used to enclose the openings at the front of the building.  The roof would be galvanised steel.  The garages would be of a timber construction with a brindle clay tiled roof.  With regard to the footpath, the Dutch barn’s rear elevation did form part of the boundary. 

Councillor Northcott shared Councillor Maxfield’s views stating that the scale and height of the proposed garages was leading towards their being converted into dwellings in the future.  The way in which the proposed buildings had been staggered on the plans would also make it easy to divide up into separate properties.  In addition, the materials to be used in the construction of the garages did not inspire confidence for permanency.

Councillor Sue Moffat shared the concerns regarding the garages and enquired as to whether the application could be put to the Conservation Advisory Working Party for their consideration in terms of the Green Belt and suggested that a Construction Management Plan would be useful to give details on how the development was to be managed.

Councillor Holland shared the concerns of Members regarding the garages.  This was a special circumstances application regarding impact on the Green Belt.  The impact in terms of the footprint of the two garages compared to the existing buildings was interesting as was the difference in volumes.  If the hardstanding was taken into account, there was an argument that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This item includes a supplementary report.

Resolved:     That the application be permittedsubject to the undermentioned conditions:

(i)         Approved plans.

(ii)        Removal of posters within 2 months of the date of the decision.

This item includes a supplementary report.

Members were advised that this application had been withdrawn.

This item includes a supplementary report.

Resolved:     That, subject to confirmation from the Environmental Health

Division that the submitted information satisfies the requirements of the conditions, the following condition applications be approved:

§  20/00958/CN01

§  20/01087/CN01

§  20/01087/CN02

A note to be added to the decision relating to condition 2 of 20/01087/DEEM3 regarding fine mud or slurry.

Resolved:     That the information be received.

Resolved:     That the information be received.

Councillor Reddish enquired as to why the County Council were not pursuing the NTADS sum as referenced on page 83 of the agenda.  The Chair suggested that a letter be sent to the County Council asking why the sum was not being pursued.

Resolved:     (i)         That the report be noted.

                        (ii)        That, for Randles (Refs. 12/00701/FUL &

16/00219/207C2), a letter to be sent to the County Council’s legal/monitoring section asking why the decision was taken not to pursue the NTADS sum secured under the Unilateral Undertaking.

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:     That the appeal decision be noted.

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 paragraph 6 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved:-                That the public be excluded from the meeting during

consideration if the following matter because it is likely

that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs contained within Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972

Potential discussion in closed session.

An update was given on this item.

Resolved:     That the information be received.

An update was given on this item.

Resolved:     That the information be received and the comments noted.

There was no Urgent Business.