Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received as listed above.

There were no declarations of interest stated.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting(s)

Resolved:    That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3^rd September 2024 be agreed as a correct record.

Resolved:    That the following observations be made:

3 King Street, Newcastle 24/00484/FUL & 24/00485/LBC

The Working Party had no objections to the principle of the new wall and railings but wanted to condition the size and profiling of the railings. They would like some more details on the restoration of the existing pier and thought that the new copings should have more profiling as they were currently a bit weak. They could be larger as well main pier.  One member questioned if the gap was still wide enough for the user.

Land to rear of 5 Morningside and 16 Laverock Grove, Madeley 24/00421/OUT

The Working Party did not consider that there would be any detrimental impact to the Conservation Area but felt that development was inappropriate for the location and that the outlook would be unfortunate for the occupiers. Another option may be for just one dwelling on the site to enable better landscaping and help the development sit within the site better.

3 Church Bank, Keele 24/00578/FUL

The Working Party recognised that this building was perhaps not the best detailed of the properties within this part of the Conservation Area and that it had been altered and added to, but it was still pleasant and had some features which were important, such as the half brick half rendered design with corbelling. 

Nevertheless it was within the CA and adjacent to the listed war memorial and church and close it the setting of both. If the hedges were reduced in size, the building was very visible and had then the potential to cause more harm with its overly modern design – Google maps over the years revealed this, including from the rear. The loss of the chimney was also disappointing.

The group felt that the proposal overall was a little ostentatious and the design overly “modern”. It was suggested that more should be made of the garden elevations and perhaps the larger windows should be on this elevation. The frontage elevation could be softened to try and retain more of the character of the building whilst leaving the more modern sections to the far side and rear.

7 Pepper Street, Newcastle 24/00602/FUL

The Group objected to this alien and irresponsible design being dropped into the historic core of the town centre where the rear alleyways contributed towards the significance of the Conservation Area. The massing, height and materials seemed inappropriate including the roofline in this location.

There were details of materials missing from the submission.  The building read as a 5 storey building given the large amount of building work and equipment on the roof which was inappropriate in this location. The one chosen viewpoint (if correct) was insufficient and others from within the Conservation Area would likely show more harmful vistas. 

The group felt that it would likely not meet building regulations.

There was no urgent business.