Agenda and draft 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 24 February, 2026 be agreed as a correct record.

To receive the decisions of applications which have been previously considered by this Working Party

Resolved:      That the report on the decision on applications previously considered

                        by this Working Party be received.

To make observations on new applications received.

Resolved:    That the following observations be made on the applications

listed below:-

William Smith Building Keele  26/000100/FUL

The Working Party had no objections.

Land south of Furnace Lane, Madeley  26/00140/ADV

The signage, whilst not illuminated is bright and garish and of very poor quality.  It is not related to the property or services it provides ie the Butchers as it appears to be targeting people parking.  It is too high and not appropriate for the conservation area and the proliferation of such signage is harmful to the amenity of the area.

132 High Street, Newcastle  26/00184/ADV

The Working Party objected to the proposal as a composition.  If the wrap around fascia was granted consent, then there is no requirement for the high level projecting sign given the two elevations capture all sides.  In addition, the sign generally is too garish and therefore inappropriate for the conservation area.  It should be toned down by removing other elements such as the additional logo signs and window vinyls.  There is a large number of repetitive signage elements which should be streamlined.

7 The Mall, 11 Brunswick Street, Newcastle 26/00166/FUL

The Working Party had no objections

Pool Farm Veterinary Main Road, Betley  26/00118/FUL

The Working Party objected to the design and materials of the proposed buildings as causing harm to the Conservation Area.  The external appearance of the buildings should be considered whether they are temporary or not because the overall context of their location is relevant.  Any backland development in the conservation area must consider this.  No attempt has been made to minimise the impact it will have on its neighbours via the design and screening opportunities using materials and a design appropriate to the high-quality environment that exists within Betley village.

There is no specific mention of the proposal being temporary apart from in the conclusion of the heritage statement.  If this is genuinely the case – what is the temporary period they are proposing?  A few months whilst they work up something more appropriate?  From a building regs perspective, such buildings are not suitable for long term occupation. 

There were no applications.

There was no Urgent Business.