Agenda item

This item includes a supplementary report.

Cllr Bryan enquired about the insufficient school provisions highlighted in the report and the surveys requested by Staffordshire Wildlife Trust. Cllr Bryan also raised concerns about the situation in relation to waste management.

The Development Manager stated that the Education authority had advised that it was projected there would be insufficient school places to mitigate the impact of the development and they were therefore seeking a financial contribution, payable to the County Council. Regarding the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, it had been confirmed that there would not be any significant adverse impact as long as ecological mitigation was taken into account. Finally, as the main road to the site was to be adopted, there would be bin collection points for the dwellings on private drives.

Cllr Bryan asked where the information about additional school provisions could be found and who would decide where the financial contribution would be used.

The Development Manager advised that the County would determine school provisions that were required  and the allocation of the funds was regulated by Section 106 and had to be consistent with the reasons why the money was raised.

Cllr Gorton enquired about the impact on the local wildlife and whether Staffordshire Wildlife Trust had carried out surveys. Clarification was also sought about whether the recommended breeding bird survey and arising mitigation measures had been accepted by the applicant.  He asked for the actual distance between dwellings and bin collection points.

The Development Manager responded that a preliminary ecological assessment had been submitted and there would be mitigation measures to make the impact acceptable. The proximity with the local wildlife site meant there were additional issues in relation to hydrology and water content for which a survey had also been submitted further to the requests raised by the Trust who was satisfied that the development would have no significant impact on wildlife habitats. Regarding bin stores, distances varied across the site but were under 30 metres from properties as recommended by building regulations.

Cllr Fear was disappointed that half of the households would have to take their bins to a collection point. He also enquired about paragraph 14B of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on neighbourhood plans containing policies and allocations to meet identified housing requirements along with latest figures in terms of housing supplies.

The Development Manager advised that the Neighbourhood Plan could currently not be given a weight of its own right as it was more than five years old. In December 2024 there was a 5.2-year supply of housing. Further to amendments to the NPPF the housing requirements had increased meaning the current provisions became a 3.1-year supply which was below the 5 years the Council was required to demonstrate.

Cllr Holland commented that the application was undesirable in his view for the reasons expressed by his colleagues. The development would equate to loss of agricultural land, trees and wildlife habitat regardless of the size and wider impact, and require various flood mitigation measures meaning the harms would outweigh the benefits. He asked whether a refusal decision would be deemed reasonable.

The Development Manager responded that there were only two small isolated areas of versatile agricultural land as such on the site. The land could not be farmed separately and the entire unit would be treated as an agricultural land of lesser quality. The NPPF required that the harms be demonstrated and the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust had expressed being satisfied by the application subject to certain conditions and detailed mitigation measures being met which had been accepted by the developers.

Cllr Holland wished to clarify that Staffordshire Wildlife Trust did not say there would be no harms but that those harms could be mitigated which was a matter of judgement. Cllr Holland proposed that the application be refused.

Cllr Bryan suggested that loss of character be added as cause for refusal.

The Development Manager advised that this was a subjective criterion that members would be entitled to use, stressing that in her professional opinion the development wouldn’t be harmful in that regard for being adjacent to existing developments.

Cllr J. Williams stated that more modest family houses with access to schools and medical facilities would be needed.

Cllr Bryan supported Cllr J. Williams comment on the wrong mix of housing, adding that the application did not include bungalows which may be another reason for refusal as being in discontinuity with other dwelling mixes in Baldwin’s Gate.

The Development Manager commented that the application included a mixture in terms of dwelling size. There was no policy stating that there should be bungalows and other developments.

Cllr Fear asked how many three-bedrooms houses had been included within the forty dwellings.

The Development Manager responded there would be 12 x 3-bedrooms, 22 x 4-bedrooms and 6 x 5-bedrooms.

Cllr Fear referred back to paragraph 11.D of the NPPF and reasons deemed acceptable towards a refusal to supervene the presumption in favour of allowing developments. The case had been made for the location not to be sustainable – use of motor car and lack of amenities. It had then been argued that it wouldn’t be the most effective use of the land. The refuse collection system proposed along with the absence of small dwellings and bungalows also showed the place was not well-designed. Finally it had not yet be demonstrated that the requirement for affordable homes was met.

The Development Manager clarified that the homes would be affordable in the proper sense of the term, not just cheaper.

Cllr Holland proposed refusal of the application on the grounds outlined by Cllr Fear, adding that in his view, building well-designed places included considering as a whole the village to which the application was attached and towards which the reliance on motor cars did not contribute.

Cllr Bryan seconded the proposal.

Cllr Gorton enquired about a footpath that seemed to lead onto the main road and may raise safety issues as well as evidence in relation to the drainage system arrangements supposed to help both the new development and offsite.

The Development Manager responded that the County Council Highways had advised they were satisfied with vehicular and pedestrian access to the site subject to conditions set out in the recommendations to be met. A transport assessment had notably been submitted. About drainage, there was a low risk of flooding on the site however mitigation measures had to be put in place so that the flows going out would not exceed how they currently were. A scheme had been designed to achieve this which would incidentally bring some improvement to the current system.

Cllr Gorton asked about if the nearest bus stop could be safely accessed and that the walking distance was appropriate.

The Development Manager confirmed that was the case and the Highways authority was satisfied.

Cllr Bryan wished to stress that the provisions were very limited and there were no alternative options.

Revised recommendation proposed by Councillor Holland and Seconded by Councillor Bryan.

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

The adverse impacts of the development, namely the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, harm to the ecological value of the site and its poor design which would result in reliance on private vehicle trips and use of bin stores, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the contribution to housing supply and affordable housing that the scheme would make. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies CSP1 and CSP4 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026, saved Policies N3, N4 and N12 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011, Policies HG1 and NE1 of the Chapel and Hill Chorlton, Maer and Aston and Whitmore Neighbourhood Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), particularly paragraph 11d(ii).

Watch the debate here