Agenda item

This item includes an amendment by the Conservative Group

The Leader and Councillor Downs left the room during the debate on the following item.

The Deputy Leader presented a report seeking to adopt the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Local Plan (2020-2040).  He stated that the Local Plan had been prepared, promoted and submitted by the previous administration.  Four consultations had been carried out prior to its submission.  Modifications were consulted on in late 2025 and changes were requested by the Planning Inspector before the Plan could be made sound, including  the removal of six proposed housing allocations.  The Planning Inspector’s final report arrived on 19 May, 2026, the day before the current administration took control. 

The new administration wrote to the Planning Inspector asking if changes could be made but were advised that no further changes could be made and that a new plan-making process would be required.  Therefore, it was felt that the danger of not adopting the Plan could have serious consequences for the Borough as it would fall back onto old policies.

Councillor Ashworth seconded the Motion stated that the Local Plan was not what the Administration would have written and therefore had tried to change it through writing to the Planning Inspector. Challenges were made to targets around BREAM, energy statements, whole life carbon assessments and a fixed 10% on site renewable target.  Stronger protection was sought for agricultural land, a more pro-business approach in Policy EMP1 and tougher controls on HMO’s and a Borough wide Article 4 Direction was pushed for.

Councillor Fear presented the amendment submitted by the Conservative group.  He referred to the standard calculation which was used to calculate the amount of housing required in the Borough and therefore, any sites removed from the Local Plan would require another site being put in.  If the previous administration had not got a Plan in place, the additional 2000 houses that the Government had imposed in the new figures would have had to have been included in the Plan being discussed this evening.

The Conservative groups’ amendment, at page 211 of the agenda set out a number of true facts which indicate that the previous administration had done whatever it could to protect green spaces in the Borough.  Councillor Fear pointed out a typing error at point D where it should read AB2 instead of B2.

Councillor Simon Tagg seconded the amendment and reserved his right to speak.

Councillors’ Shaw and Ashworth consented to the amendment.

Councillor Fear stated that the Plan had been developed to try and ensure that impositions of national government were imposed upon the Borough as lightly as possible.  Reference was made to paragraph 3.17 which stated that, although the Borough was under the national average for unemployment, the figures were slightly over the national average in Staffordshire.  It was hoped that the Local Plan would help to provide the jobs required to bring the local unemployment figures down.

The Local Plan was good and sound and had gone through ample consultation and was offering the minimum amount of housing imposed upon the Borough and giving employment opportunities.

Councillor Simon Tagg stated that difficult decisions had to be made in the previous Council and would have to be made in the new Council in the face of objections from local residents on sites being included/not included in the Plan.  The housing and employment requirements had been set by national government and this Council settled on the lowest number that it could whilst still providing a sustainable Plan which met the Government’s requirements. 

Councillor Tagg stated that the Local Plan was very different to the Joint Local Plan that had been put together with Stoke on Trent City Council which would have meant 11,720 houses being built in the Borough between now and 2033.  The Plan being discussed at this meeting had approximately 8000 proposed houses.

Councillor Holland stated that in his fifteen years as a Councillor, the Council had not had an up to date Local Development Plan which would come at an enormous cost to the Council’s ability to control development in the Borough and had been especially harmful to rural communities.

Councillor Dave Jones stated that he sympathised with the new Administration who had inherited the Plan at its final stage and recognised that the Borough was in a difficult position with speculative applications. Councillor Jones had concluded that a flawed plan that locked in the wrong sites at Audley, damaged a site of real bio diversity at Keele and failed to secure social housing was not automatically a safer choice.  He objected to site AB2 at Audley as it would remove 80 hectares of agricultural Green Belt land to become six large distribution warehouses and the Labour group had argued that it should have been met in the Chatterley Valley development site.

Reference was made to the development of 900 homes on the former Municipal Golf Course at Keele, which, since its closure had become one of the most bio -diverse sites in the Borough.   It would also put pressure on the infrastructure of Silverdale which was already straining.

Councillor Machin advised that the three Audley Ward Councillors would be voting against the Local Plan as the current Administration did not choose the sites contained within it.  Residents had raised concerns about the affect of development on the infrastructure of Audley and the Ward Councillors felt that they needed to be honest with the people whom they represented. 

Councillor Bettley-Smith stated that residents within the wards that he represented had become concerned as to what could happen when it was believed that the Local Plan may not be adopted.

Councillor Lefroy pointed out that the original plans for the former Keele Golf Course were for 1800 homes. Although the revised plan was still 900 homes, nearly 60% of the land would be devoted to a country park. 

Councillor Hutchison stated that Silverdale Parish Council had backed the building of the 900 homes – which still left over half of the site to become  Keele Park Countryside Park.

Councillor Stevenson opposed the amendment stating that 99% of Newchapel residents did not want housing on the allocated sites. 

Councillor Shaw, in summing up, stated that the examination had concluded and no further changes could be made.  If the Plan was rejected this evening no areas would be protected, leaving the Borough in a weakened position and the Council would be leaving itself open to the Government’s higher housing numbers.

Councillor Duffy left the meeting at 8.40pm

A named vote was requested and taken on the Motion as amended:

In Favour (Y) – 32

Against (N) – 6

Abstain – 0

Resolved:    (i)       That the outcomes of the Inspectors report into the

Examination of the Borough Local Plan 2020-2040 (appendices 1 and 2 to this report), be noted.

(ii)        That the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Local Plan (2020-2040), be adopted subject to:

(a)  incorporating the Main Modifications (Appendix 2) recommended by the Inspector necessary to make the Plan sound as well as the accompanying list of changes to the associated Policies Map (Appendix 3)

(b)  the schedule of additional modifications (Appendix 4)

                        (iii)       withdraws the policies in the adopted Newcastle-under-Lyme

                                    Borough Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council Core .                                    Strategy and the adopted Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough 

                                    Council Local Plan (2003) except for those policies listed to

                                    be saved in the Local Plan 2020 – 2040.

                        (iv)       That the Interim Head of Service (Planning Policy) be `                                       authorised to publish a Sustainability Appraisal Adoption

                                    Statement and a Local Plan Adoption Statement in line with

                                    the regulations contained within the Town and Country

                                    Planning Regulations 2012.

                        (v)        That the Interim Head of Service (Planning Policy), in

consultation with the Portfolio Holder, be authorised to make any non-material updates and drafting changes to the Local Plan. This includes the additional (minor) modifications published alongside the Main Modifications (Appendix 4).

Watch the debate here

The meeting was adjourned for a short break at 8.50pm

The meeting resumed at 9.00pm