Planning Committee

Public Document Pack

Date of meeting Tuesday, 4th June, 2013

Time 7.00 pm

Venue Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Merrial Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 2AG Contact Nick Lamper 01782 742227

Planning Committee

AGENDA

PART 1 – OPEN AGENDA

1 Apologies 2 Declarations of Interest 3 MINUTES OF LAST MEET ING (Pages 1 - 6) Held on 7 May 2013 to be signed as a correct record.

4 Application for Minor Development - Old Springs Farm, (Page s 7 - 12) Stoneyford: HLW Farms: 13/00244/FUL 5 Application for Minor Development - Old Springs Farm, (Pages 13 - 18) Stoneyford: HLW Farms: 13/00245/FUL 6 Application for Minor Development - Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove: (Pages 19 - 30) Mr Paul Brooks: 13/00266/FUL 7 Application for Minor Development - Land South of Bignall Hill: (Pages 31 - 36) Mr Nicholas Trickett: 13/00274/FUL 8 Application for Minor Development - Alderhay Farm, 58 (Pages 37 - 42) Harriseahead Lane, Harriseahead: Mr Stephen Gallimore: 13/00232/FUL 9 Application for Other Development - Land to Rear of 17 and 19 (Pages 43 - 50) Biddulph Road, Harriseahead: Mrs A Barker on behalf of Mrs Chesworth: 13/00306/COU 10 Application for Other Development - Sherringham, Apedale (Pages 51 - 56) Road, Wood Lane: Mr and Mrs Johnson: 13/00315/FUL 11 Application for Other Development - 21 Rathbone Avenue, May (Pages 57 - 62) Bank: Miss C Horne: 13/00354/FUL 12 Five -Year Housing Supply Assessment for the Borough of (Pages 63 - 66) Newcastle-under-Lyme: 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017 13 Revocation of the Regional Strategy for the West Midlands and (Pages 67 - 68) Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 Policies 14 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 - Changing (Pages 69 - 70) Heritage Protection in England 15 Audley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (Pages 71 - 74) Supplementary Planning Document 16 Applications for Exemptions from the Permitted Development (Pages 75 - 76) Rights for Change of Use from Offices to Residential Use 17 Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General (Pages 77 - 80) Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Introduction of New Permitted Development Rights and Associated Prior Notification Procedures 18 Application for Financial Assistance (Historic Buildings (Pages 81 - 82) Grants) from the Conservation and Heritage Fund - The Garden House at 21 Larchwood, Keele University: 13/14002/HBG 19 Application for Financial Assistance (Historic Buildings (Pages 83 - 84) Grants) from the Conservation and Heritage Fund - 1 The Old Vicarage, Mow Cop: 13/14003/HBG 20 Application for Financial Assistance (Historic Buildings (Pages 85 - 86) Grants) from the Conservation and Heritage Fund - Roche House, 5 Court Walk, Betley: 13/14004/HBG 21 Appeal by Mrs J Abbotts against the Decision of the Council to (Pages 87 - 88) Refuse Planning Permission for the Erection of a First Floor Extension above an Existing Garage at 62 Station Road, Keele, Newcastle-under-Lyme 22 Appeal by Aspire Housing Group against the Decision of the (Pages 89 - 90) Council to Refuse Outline Planning Permission for the Erection of Two Detached Dwellings with Improvements to Existing Site Access and Provision of On-site Turning Areas on Land at Rear of 11A - 19 Moorlands Road, Mow Cop 23 Urgent Business 24 EXCLUSION OF PRESS A ND PUBLIC To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item, because it is likely that there will be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

25 Enforcement Action - Archway House, The Drive, Alsagers (Pages 91 - 96) Bank, ST7 8BB

Members: Councillors Miss Baker, Boden, Cairns, Clarke (Chair), Fear, Hambleton, Mrs Hambleton, Howells, Matthews, Miss Reddish, Stringer (Vice-Chair), Studd, Sweeney, Williams and Mrs Williams

Members of the Council: If you identify any personal training/development requirements from any of the items included in this agenda or through issues raised during the meeting, please bring them to the attention of the Democratic Services Officer at the close of the meeting.

Officers will be in attendance prior to the meeting for informal discussions on agenda items. Public Document Pack Agenda Item 3 Planning Committee - 07/05/13

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7.00 pm, Tuesday, 7 May, 2013

Present :- Councillor Clarke – in the Chair

Councillors Miss Baker, Boden, Cairns, Hambleton, Mrs Hambleton, Howells, Jones, Matthews, Miss Reddish, Stringer, Studd, Williams and Mrs Williams

In attendance:- Councillor Holland (for the consideration of item 5) Councillor Becket (for the consideration of item 8) Councillor Welsh (for the consideration of item 9)

Elaine Moulton (Development Management Team Manager), Lisa Hall (Principal Solicitor), Nick Lamper (Senior Member Services Officer), Pete Rowley (Senior Planning Officer), Rebecca Allen (Landscape Manager), Darren Walters (Team Leader, Environmental Protection) and Andrea Baker (Environmental Health Officer)

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of the chair, Councillor Andrew Fear, and Councillor Stephen Sweeney. Councillor Nigel Jones was present from 7.12 pm, during the consideration of item 5.

2. MINUTES OF LAST MEETING

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chair.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Ian Matthews declared a personal interest in item 9 as he knew the applicant, and left the meeting during the consideration of the matter.

4. APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - IMPERIAL WORKS, COALPIT HILL, TALKE AND ADJOINING LAND: MR AND MRS WEDGWOOD: 09/00599/EXTN

Resolved:

(1) That, subject to the applicant entering into Section 106 obligations by no later than 5 June 2013 to secure the following:- (a) In perpetuity, provision of 25% of the dwellings as affordable units (minimum 15% social rented) by a Registered Social Landlord (RSL); (b) A financial contribution of £2,943 per dwelling for open space enhancement/ improvements and maintenance; (c) A contribution of £10,000 towards the Newcastle (urban) Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS); and (d) An appropriate financial contribution towards the provision of education facilities taking into account that details of the development (number and type) are not yet know;

1 Page 1 Planning Committee - 07/05/13

permission be granted subject to conditions relating to the following:- (a) The timetable for submission of reserved matters and commencement of development; (b) Approved drawings; (c) Contaminated land; (d) Highway matters; (e) Surface water drainage scheme; (f) Recyclable materials and refuse storage; (g) No more than 32 dwellings; (h) Reserved matters submission to show trees to be retained; (i) Stand off of development in relation to trees on adjoining land; and (j) No approval granted for height of the development indicated on the draft layout; (2) That, should the matters referred to in (1) above not be secured in the specified period, the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that without such matters being secured the development would fail to secure an appropriate level of affordable housing, the provision of adequate public open space, measures to ensure that the development achieves sustainable development outcomes and the provision for required education facilities or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which the obligations can be secured.

5. APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT - LAND AT MARKET DRAYTON ROAD, LOGGERHEADS: STOKE-ON-TRENT AND STAFFORDSHIRE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE: 13/00272/OUT

Resolved: That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to the following:- (a) No development hereby approved shall commence until the off-site highway works indicated on drawing no LOG (95) L- 001 rev 11 have been implemented in accordance with the scheme detailed on the specified drawing; and (b) All other conditions of 13/00028/OUT shall continue to apply other than condition 3 as varied by the grant of this permission.

6. APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 17 EDWARD AVENUE, NEWCASTLE: MR E COOK: 13/00226/OUT

Resolved:

(1) That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to the following:- (a) Standard time limits for submission of applications for approval of reserved matters and commencement of development; (b) Details of car parking arrangements, surfacing materials and surface water drainage; (c) Submission of Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Strategic Landscape Design; (d) Recyclable materials and refuse storage arrangements; (e) Surface water drainage scheme; (f) Contaminated land; and (g) Importation of soil; and (2) That any reserved matters application be placed before the Planning Committee for determination.

Page 2 2 Planning Committee - 07/05/13

7. APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT - OLD PEEL FARM, NANTWICH ROAD, AUDLEY: MR P ADAMS: 13/00269/FUL

Resolved: That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to the following:- (a) Commencement of the development; (b) Approved plans; (c) Prior approval of materials to be utilised (surfacing of ménage); (d) Prior approval of means of storing and disposing of stable wastes; (e) Prior approval of jumps and similar features; (f) Surfacing and maintenance of access; (g) Provision of parking and turning; and (h) Prior approval of levels of ménage.

8. APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT - BUDDILEIGH FARM, BACK LANE, BETLEY: MR A ALEXANDER: 13/00258/FUL

It was reported that, since the publication of the main and supplementary reports, the views of Betley, Balterley and Wrinehill Parish Council had been received, indicating a wish for the use of the accommodation to remain ancillary to that of the main dwelling. This had been addressed in the original report by way of recommended condition.

Resolved: That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to the following:- (a) Non-severance condition to ensure the accommodation remains ancillary to the main dwellinghouse known as Buddileigh Farm House; and (b) No alterations, extensions or erection of boundary treatment without prior express permission from the Local Planning Authority.

9. APPLICATION FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENT - LAND AT NETHERSET HEY LANE, MADELEY: MR VYSE: 12/00185/COU

(Councillor Ian Matthews declared a personal interest in this item as he knew the applicant, and left the meeting during the consideration of the matter.)

It was reported that, since the publication of the main and supplementary reports, a further eight letters of support had been received in respect of the application.

Resolved:

(1) That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to the following matters:- (a) Landscaping; (b) Any gates a minimum of 5m rear of carriageway boundary; (c) Hours of operation and deliveries Monday to Sunday between 9.00 am and 6.00 pm; (d) Noise levels from activities on site not to exceed level recommended by Environmental Health Department; (e) Full details of acoustic screens and associated gates, minimum of 3m high, to be provided within 1 month. Once approved, installed within 3 months and maintained in efficient and effective order with regards to

3 Page 3 Planning Committee - 07/05/13

their acoustic integrity. Gate immediately to the yard area behind Birches Farm Mews to be properly shut during chain sawing and log splitting. (f) Noise management and mitigation plan to be submitted for approval in 1 month and implemented when approved; and (g) Area to rear of Birches Farm Mews to be used for storage only; (2) That the reason for granting permission be as follows:- Whilst the proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt it is considered in this particular instance there are the required very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the inappropriateness of the development, namely:- (a) Limited impact on the character and openness of the Green Belt, would not adversely affect the agricultural uses in the area, would benefit the community and is a rural enterprise which provides jobs within the rural area; and (b) The development is acceptable in highway safety terms, would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and, subject to appropriate controls, would not adversely affect residential amenity. The development is in accordance with policy; (3) That the Proposed Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application be as follows:- The council has liaised with the applicant to secure additional supporting information to satisfy itself that noise can be appropriately addressed. It is considered that the proposal constitutes sustainable development and therefore meets the provisions of paragraphs 186 – 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10. APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (HISTORIC BUILDINGS GRANTS) FROM THE CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE FUND - THE WHITE HOUSE, POOLSIDE, MADELEY: 13/14001/HBG

An application was submitted for financial assistance towards the cost of repair of the above building of special architectural and historic interest.

The cost of phase 1 of the proposed works was £3,737 with the Grade II listing of the building making it eligible for a grant of 20% of the cost (£747).

Resolved: That a grant of £747 be made in respect of the above works, subject to the appropriate standard conditions.

11. ANNUAL REPORT ON PLANNING AND RELATED APPEALS: APRIL 2012 - MARCH 2013

The Annual Report in respect of Planning Appeals for 2012/13 was submitted.

Resolved:

(1) That internal management procedures within the service including the assessment of case officers’ recommendations by more senior officers continue to be applied; (2) That a report be submitted to the chair and vice-chair of the committee in six months time on appeal performance in the first half of 2013/14, and on any further steps that have been taken in the light of that performance;

Page 4 4 Planning Committee - 07/05/13

(3) That the committee’s earlier decision be reaffirmed that, when an application is to come before the committee for determination, members be urged to draw any concerns to the case officer’s attention as soon as possible after receiving notice of the application in the weekly list, so that potential solutions to the concerns may be sought with the applicant in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework; (4) That the committee’s earlier decision be reaffirmed that full advantage be taken of the use of conditions in planning permissions to make developments acceptable; (5) That the committee’s earlier decision be reaffirmed that any member intending to propose refusal of an application contrary to recommendation be urged to contact the Head of Planning and Development no less than 24 hours before the meeting, with details of the reasons he/she is minded to give for such a refusal; (6) That the committee’s earlier decision be reaffirmed that when a proposal to refuse planning permission is made at a committee meeting contrary to the officer’s recommendation, advice be sought as to the most appropriate way to meet the requirement to work in a proactive and positive manner with applicant(s); (7) That the committee’s earlier decision be reaffirmed that the proposer and seconder of a motion for refusal contrary to officer recommendation be identified and recorded and, in the event of an appeal being lodged, there be an expectation that those members will make themselves available as witnesses on behalf of the council in the appeal proceedings should either the Head of Planning and Development or the Head of Central Services deem that appropriate; and (8) That the committee’s earlier decision be reaffirmed that a proactive approach be taken by officers to appeal handling with early holding of case conferences where appropriate, the strength of the case being continually reassessed in the light of any new evidence received and, in the case of matters being determined by means of public inquiry, the Head of Central Services or his/her representative taking charge of the matter.

12. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO 147 (2012) - WOODLAND LINKING MUCKLESTONE ROAD, LOGGERHEADS TO LEIGHTON'S DRUMBLE

A report was submitted seeking the confirmation of the above Tree Preservation Order, which had been made under delegated powers on 16 November 2012.

Resolved: That Tree Preservation Order No 147 (2012) (Woodland adjacent to Mucklestone Road, Loggerheads, Staffordshire) be confirmed as amended and that the owners of the trees be informed accordingly.

13. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - BLOCK E, PORTLAND MEWS, ST5 8SD: 12/00194/207C2

A report was submitted to determine whether enforcement action was necessary or appropriate in respect of the breach of a Section 106 agreement relating to fixed obscure glazed windows at the above location ((linked to permission 94/00872/FUL.

Resolved: That no further action be taken in relation to the changing of the windows to top-opening casements subject to the following:- (a) The occupier/owners be notified by letter that the windows shall remain permanently obscure glazed to level 5, that no

5 Page 5 Planning Committee - 07/05/13

further changes to the window are permitted, and that casement/stay hinges are fitted to permanently restrict the opening to no more that 10-12cm within 4 weeks; (b) Should the window restriction in (a) above not be undertaken, or further unauthorised modifications to the windows are undertaken at a later date, Legal Services be instructed to take enforcement action to secure full and permanent closure of the windows in line with the original Section 106 agreement; and (c) If appropriate, invite occupiers to provide a unilateral obligation to secure (a) above.

14. URGENT BUSINESS

There was no urgent business.

Chair

The meeting concluded at 8.42 pm.

Page 6 6 Agenda Item 4

OLD SPRINGS FARM, STONEYFORD HLW FARMS 13/244/FUL

The application is for full planning permission for the retention of the change of use of part of a farm office to office for associated renewable energy business.

The site is located within the open countryside and within an Area of Landscape Conservation as defined by the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The application was called to Committee by two Councillors due to concerns raised by Loggerheads Parish Council and residents in respect of highways impact and general development in the countryside.

The 8 week period for the determination of this application expires on the 10 th June 2013

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT subject to the following condition;

• No direct face to face sales of boilers at the site or storage or showroom of boilers

Reason for Recommendation

The development is acceptable in principle in planning policy terms subject to controls over the precise nature of the use. The development therefore adheres with the principles of policy ASP6 of the Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Spatial Strategy as well as the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

This is considered to be a sustainable form of development and so complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policies and Proposals in the Approved Development Plan relevant to this decision:-

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006 -2026 (adopted 2009) (CSS)

Policy CSP1: Design Quality Policy ASP6: Rural Area Spatial Policy

Newcastle Under Lyme Local Plan 2011 (NLP)

Policy N17: Landscape Character –General Considerations Policy N18: Area of Active Landscape Conservation

Other Material Considerations

Page 7 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Planning for Landscape Change – Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Structure Plan

Relevant Planning History

Planning permission was granted in 2009 for a crop storage barn, specifically for storage of crops that would be used at the Biomass Station at Eccleshall (reference 09/00137/FUL). A S106 obligation was entered into relating to the routing of all heavy commercial and other vehicles travelling to and from the site and the Biomass Station.

Planning permission was granted for a steel portal framed building to house farm machinery/implements in May 2012 (reference 12/00146/FUL).

An application for the retention of an agricultural building for the chopping and storage of miscanthus (a biomass fuel) has been submitted and is reported to this Committee elsewhere on the agenda (reference 13/00245/FUL).

Views of Consultees

Loggerheads Parish Council object to the application for the reasons summarised below:

• The traffic movements associated with the development compromise the quality of the historic environment and the designation of Tyrley Road itself as a cycle route. • The Shropshire Council planning permission for the related development of a miscanthus processing plant had serious implications in terms of additional traffic movements, and the current problems caused by HGVs using Tyrley Road are likely to see further intensification should this development be authorised. • The owners of Old Springs Farm have failed to ensure compliance with previous undertakings given in 2009 in respect of the movement of HGVs to and from the farm along an approved access route through Almington, and not along Tyrley Road. In light of these failings the development now under consideration will only serve to exacerbate existing problems caused by the previous developments and that, accordingly, permission should be refused.

The Environmental Health Division has no objections.

Representations

One representation has been received. The comments predominantly relate to the routing agreement (which is appended to the planning statement and does not relate to this particular application) and more specifically the legal wording of the agreement. It then goes on to discuss the importance of the need for a routing agreement in relation to heavy goods vehicles to prevent adverse impacts upon the national cycle route as well as a conservation area and listed buildings.

Page 8 Questions are also raised in the correspondence relating to other on-going matters at the site which will be dealt with separately to the determination of this application.

Applicant/agent’s submission

The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement and a planning statement that covers two other planning applications one of which is currently invalid, and the second being application 13/00245/FUL which is reported within this agenda. It indicates that the change of use of part of the farm office to an office for a business that employs 4 people and are involved in the selling of miscanthus (a biomass product) and specialized heating boilers that use miscanthus. It stipulates that there is no show room on site and boiler customers would not come to the site.

These documents and the representation referred to above are available for inspection at the Guildhall and on www.newcastle- staffs.gov.uk/planning/OldSpringsFarm1

Key Issues

The application is for full planning permission for the retention of the change of use of part of a farm office to office for associated renewable energy business. The room in question is approximately 72m² in size and was formerly used as part of the farm office. The business operating from the office is intrinsically linked to the wider farm business however it has been created as an offshoot providing particular expertise on miscanthus seed, as well as the selling of miscanthus and specialised heating boilers. There is no showroom on site and the boiler customers do not come to the site. The boilers are not kept on site and are installed by other companies.

Due to the nature of the application, it is considered that the key issue in the determination of the application is the principle of the development and highway matters.

Principle of the development

Section 3 of the NPPF highlights that planning policy should support a prosperous and rural economy with paragraph 28 stating that,

“Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should: • Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings; • Promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based rural businesses”

This positive approach to rural enterprise is seen within the Local Development Framework with policy ASP6 (Rural Area Spatial Policy) stating that,

“The council will take a positive approach towards rural enterprise relating to the availability of the local workforce”

The use of the office for the sale of specialised boilers is considered to be a diversification of the agricultural activities on the site which is closely linked to the

Page 9 growing of miscanthus, an agricultural activity, and is considered to meet the overarching aims and objectives of the NPPF as well as the Core Spatial Strategy.

Highway matters

The business that operates from the office is said to employ 4 members of staff. The submission indicates that customers do not visit the office in connection with the sale of boilers, with occasional visitors in connection with the sale of miscanthus or to learn about this energy crop. These vehicles would not be large, commercial vehicles and the number of them is not considered to raise potential highway concerns in the vicinity and particularly in relation to National Cycle Route No. 75.

Overall it is considered that the number of vehicular movements associated with this use will be minimal, will not result in any highway safety concerns and would accord with policy. It is prudent to impose a condition, for the avoidance of doubt, specifying that no direct face to face sales shall take place at the site as well as the storage of boilers or use as a showroom.

Due to the nature of the development applied for in this planning application the concerns raised by Loggerheads Parish Council in relation to the need of a routing agreement are not considered to be justified in connection with this planning application.

Background Papers

Planning File Planning Documents referred to

Date Report Prepared 21 st May 2013

Page 10 Old Springs Farm, Stoneyford

13/244/FUL & 13/00245/FUL

) 370200.000000 370300.000000 370400.000000 370500.000000 .000000 .000000 333100 333100 .000000 .000000 333000 333000

06.7m Old Springs Farm Path (u m)

Old Springs Farm Cottages .000000 .000000 332900 332900 .000000 .000000 117.0m 332800 332800

Application site This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes .000000 Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. .000000 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012 332700 332700

370200.000000 370300.000000 370400.000000 370500.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council ¯ 1:2,000 Planning & Development Services Page 11 Date 04.06.2013 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 Agenda Item 5

OLD SPRINGS FARM, STONEYFORD HLW FARMS 13/245/FUL

The application is for full planning permission for the retention of an agricultural building for chopping and storage of Miscanthus.

The site is located within the open countryside and within an Area of Landscape Conservation as defined by the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The application was called to Committee by two Councillors due to concerns raised by Loggerheads Parish Council and residents in respect of highways impact and general development in the countryside.

The 8 week period for the determination of this application expires on the 10 th June 2013.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT subject to a condition relating to the following;

• Within 2 months of the date of the planning permission details of the re- grading and landscaping of the excavated material or its distribution elsewhere in the site is to be submitted and approved, and implemented within 4 months of the date of that approval.

Reason for Recommendation

The development is acceptable in principle and due to the scale, location and removal/alteration of the excavated material no adverse impact upon the surrounding landscape would ensue. The development therefore adheres with the principles of policies N17 and N18 of the Newcastle under Lyme Local Plan and policies CSP1 and ASP6 of the Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Spatial Strategy as well as the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

This is considered to be a sustainable form of development and so complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. The local planning authority has been in regular discussions with the applicant’s agent on regularising this matter since it was brought to our attention.

Policies and Proposals in the Approved Development Plan relevant to this decision:-

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006 -2026 (adopted 2009) (CSS)

Policy CSP1: Design Quality Policy ASP6: Rural Area Spatial Policy

Newcastle Under Lyme Local Plan 2011 (NLP)

Page 13

Policy N17: Landscape Character –General Considerations Policy N18: Area of Active Landscape Conservation

Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Planning for Landscape Change – Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Structure Plan

Relevant Planning History

Planning permission was granted for a building very similar to this but with a different orientation in May 2012 (reference 12/00146/FUL).

An application for the retention of use of part of a farm office to an office for use associated with a renewable energy business has been submitted and is reported to this Committee elsewhere on the agenda (reference 13/00244/FUL).

Views of Consultees

Loggerheads Parish Council object to the application for the reasons summarised below:

The Environmental Health Division has no objections.

Principal Rights of Way Officer (Staffordshire County Council) indicates that the county council’s definitive map of public rights of way shows public footpath No.57 running outside the northern boundary of the development site. The development does not appear to affect the line of the footpath however the applicant should be

Page 14 made aware of it. The County Council are currently processing an application for the diversion of this footpath.

The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to; • A routing agreement for all heavy commercial vehicles and all associated vehicles associated with the transportation of miscanthus from the proposed development through to the A53 (Newcastle Road) and all vehicles returning to Old Springs Farm to be agreed. • The existing site access shall be re-surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 10m rear of the highway boundary and maintained as such.

Representations

Questions are also raised in the correspondence relating to other on-going matters at the site which will be dealt with separately to the determination of this application.

Applicant/agent’s submission

The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement and a planning statement that covers two other planning applications one of which is currently invalid, and the second being application 13/00244/FUL which is reported within this agenda. It indicates that building that was constructed followed planning permission in 2012 for the chopping of miscanthus and the storage of the chopped material. The building as erected, however, was turned through 90° for operational reasons relating to the minimisation of the handling of miscanthus and the reduction in the distance between the bale storage and the building.

These documents and the representation referred to above are available for inspection at the Guildhall and on www.newcastle- staffs.gov.uk/planning/OldSpringsFarm2

Key Issues

Planning permission was granted on the site in 2012 (12/00146/FUL) for a building for the storage of farm machinery/implements. The building subsequently constructed was in accordance with the approval in respect of dimensions and appearance but was not located as approved and as such did not accord with the planning permission. The current application seeks to regularise this unauthorised development.

The building measures 36.75m in length with a width of 24.4m and a ridge and eaves height of 12.96m and 9.6m respectively. The roof is clad with dark blue fibre panels with the side elevations consisting of Juniper Green metal clad sheeting above lover concrete panels. As indicated above it is used for the chopping and storage of chopped miscanthus, a biomass crop.

Page 15 Whilst the precise use of the building as described within the planning permission granted in 2012 and that within this planning application differs, both uses are agricultural. The principle of an agricultural building of the scale proposed within the current application was accepted in 2012. The subsequent revocation of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan policies does not materially affect the policy context for the determination of this application and both the NPPF and Core Spatial Strategy support the development. The principle of the development therefore remains acceptable.

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:-

• The impact upon the wider landscape taking into account its location within an Area of Landscape Conservation. • Highway matters

The impact upon the wider landscape taking into account its location within an Area of Landscape Conservation

Policy N18 states that the Council will support subject to other plan policies, proposals that will help to conserve the high quality and distinctive character of the area’s landscape. Development that will harm the quality and character of the landscape will not be permitted. Within these areas particular consideration will be given to the siting, design, scale materials and landscaping of all development to ensure that it is appropriate to the character of the area.

It is considered that the location of the development as constructed does not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape. The agricultural building has been built in line with the existing large miscanthus store and also within close proximity to the existing cluster of farm buildings and would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the surrounding landscape in terms of unacceptable intrusion. The materials that have been utilised in its construction are the same as those utilises in another building within the site and appear acceptable within a rural environment.

The building has been constructed at the same level as the existing courtyard which is considered acceptable. As a result of this there appears to have been some material excavated and piled up adjacent to the South-East elevation with no landscaping undertaken. This is visually unacceptable and as such it is proposed to include a condition on any planning permission issued that specifies that this material is either formed into a shallow grassed bund or used elsewhere in the site. A suitable timeframe would then be given to complete these works.

Highway matters

The application is effectively the resubmission of an application that was previously approved. That planning permission was not subject to a S106 obligation setting out a routing agreement for vehicular movements associated with the building, nor any highway conditions. Whilst the building which is the subject of this planning application is used for the chopping and storage of miscanthus, and the building permitted was said to be for the storage of agricultural machinery, as stated above both uses are agricultural in nature. As such the proposal does not constitute a material change in use to that previously permitted.

Page 16 Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Highway Authority (and also raised by Loggerheads Parish Council) that there is a need for a routing agreement to be secured through a S106 obligation it is considered that this is not justified bearing in mind that the planning permission granted in 2012 was not subject to such a routing agreement and the relatively modest scale of the building.

It should be noted that an enforcement investigation is ongoing at the site relating to the non-compliance with the routing agreement that was secured in connection with planning permission 09/00137/FUL and the unauthorised enlargement of that building. A retrospective application has been submitted for the enlargement of the building which includes a draft routing agreement, however that application is invalid.

Your officer is currently, in consultation with Legal Services, considering the most appropriate way of securing a routing agreement for vehicles associated with this building or all vehicular movements from the wider site. Any update on the progress of this matter will be brought before planning committee.

Should the application for the large barn become valid it will automatically come to planning committee due to the scale of the proposal.

The condition recommended by the Highway Authority in relation to the re-surfacing of the entrance in a bound surface. Such a treatment of the entrance would introduce an engineered and more urban feature into the countryside which is considered to be visually unacceptable. In addition it is not considered that this is necessary as the existing surface being very compact and there being no particular signs of detriment to highway safety.

Background Papers

Planning File Planning Documents referred to

Date Report Prepared 20 th May 2013

Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 18 Agenda Item 6

SLACKEN LANE, KIDSGROVE MR PAUL BROOKS 13/00266/FUL

The application is for full planning permission for the erection of 6 bungalows at Slacken Lane, Kidsgrove.

The site lies within the urban area as defined on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The application has been called in to be determined by planning committee by two councillors for the following reasons:

• Loss of amenity • Over development - detrimental to the local environment and the abundance of wildlife in the area • Inappropriate development – the number of bungalows proposed is unacceptable and not in keeping with the area. • Access – off a footpath beyond the wide part of Slacken Lane, and would require widening and adoption. • Landscaping – lack of p ublic spaces, the properties have only been allocated rear gardens with no provision for any soft landscaping to fronts of the dwellings to improve their appearance • Plans have not been submitted for each dwelling. • Obscures views at the rear of an adjoining property. • Butt Lane is becoming over developed as a whole and persistent development is putting sever pressure on the A34, Congleton Road.

The 8 week period for the determination of this application expires on the 5th June 2013.

Page 19 RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons;

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate access can be achieved to serve the proposed development that would enable vehicles to enter and leave Slacken Lane and the site safely and which would not cause conflict and danger to the users of the public footpath. Therefore the development is considered to be contrary to Policy T16 of the Newcastle-under- Lyme Local Plan 2011 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact upon the form and character of the surrounding area, contrary to the aims and objectives of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2010) and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The applicant has failed to enter into a unilateral undertaking to secure £4000 developer contribution to the Newcastle-under-Lyme (urban) Transport and Development Strategy, conflicting with the aims of Policy CSP10 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006 – 2026, and the aims and objectives of the Developer Contributions SPD the Newcastle- under-Lyme (urban) Transport and Development Strategy, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

Attempts were made to obtain the required information from the agent for the Highways Authority to assess the application however this information has not been submitted. Overall the development is considered to be an unsustainable form of development and as such is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policies and Proposals in the approved Development Plan relevant to this decision:-

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 (adopted 2009) (CSS) Policy SP1 Spatial Principles of Targeted Regeneration Policy SP2 Spatial Principles for Economic Development Policy SP3 Spatial Principles of Movement and Access Policy ASP 5: Newcastle and Kidsgrove Urban Neighbourhoods Area Spatial Policy Policy CSP1: Design Quality Policy CSP4: Sustainability and Climate Change Policy CSP4: Natural Assets Policy CSP10: Planning Obligations

Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 Policy H1: Residential development: sustainable location and protection of the countryside Policy H3: Residential development – Priority to brownfield sites Policy T16: Development: General Parking Requirements Policy T18: Development – Servicing Requirements

Page 20 Policy N3: Development and nature conservation – Protection and enhancement measures Policy N12: Development and the protection of trees Policy N13: Felling and pruning of trees Policy N14: Protection of landscape features of major importance to flora and fauna

Other material considerations include:

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance SPD (Nov 2010) Space around Dwellings Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2004) Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (October 2007)

Waste Management and Recycling Planning Practice Guidance Note (January 2011)

Newcastle (urban) Transport and Development Strategy (NTADS)

Circular 11/95 The use of conditions in planning permissions

Relevant Planning History

76/03196/OUT Permitted Proposed ex-servicemens social club

00/00419/OUT Refused Residential development (Amended highway information)

10/00437/PLD Permitted Certificate of lawfulness for a proposed ex service mens social club

Views of Consultees

The Highway Authority recommends refusal of the application due to insufficient information provided by the applicant to assess the application. It states that

• Slacken Lane is not an adopted highway and is classified as a private road. There is a public footpath over Slacken Lane and the specific route of the footpath should be clearly detailed on the layout plan. • The submission does not provide details of vehicle/pedestrian access to the site or any proposed highway improvements to Slacken Lane or the junction with the A34. • Details are required of the existing number of properties which have vehicle access off Slacken Lane should be provided. • Clarification is required that the applicant has vehicular rights over Slacken Lane to the proposed development site. • Details are required as to who owns Slacken Lane and how it is currently maintained and what the proposals are for future maintenance. • Slacken Lane is currently unmade with a stone surface, no segregated footpath, drainage of street lighting and no improvements are proposed as part of the development.

Page 21 • The junction of Slacken Lane with the A34 does not have any junction radii and no junction improvements proposed. In addition no details of the width of the access or dimensions of the visibility splays at the junction with the A34 have been provided. • At the point of access Slacken Lane is narrow and effectively only a footpath. No details have been provided regarding the widening of the road at this point and how vehicle access can be achieved. • No details of how refuse/recycling collection will be undertaken and where vehicles will turn within the site.

They have requested a £4000 contribution to NTADs in the event of the application being acceptable in highway safety terms

The Environmental Health Division has no objections subject to conditions relating to: • Construction hours • Internal noise levels of dwellings • Waste storage and collection arrangements • Contaminated land conditions

The County Council Rights of Way Section comments that Public Footpath No 10 (Kidsgrove: Hardingswood) runs along the access track (Slacken Lane). The footpath constitutes the full width of the track and the width of the path cannot be restricted as a result of the application proposal. The applicant must be made aware that cars cannot be parked on the footpath.

The Waste Management Section of the Council has concerns over the access to the proposed properties off Slacken Lane which is an unadopted road, which is narrow and in a generally poor state of repair. Servicing these properties would require a collection point to be agreed close to the main Congleton Road. Recommend a prior to commencement condition for approval of details of recyclable materials and refuse storage and collection.

United Utilities has no objections to the application

Kidsgrove Town Council has objected to the application on the following grounds: • Loss of amenity • Over development • Harm to wildlife and the environment • Inappropriate development – number of bungalows proposed is not in keeping with area • Insufficient access arrangements • No provision of landscaping • Plans not submitted for each dwelling • The proposed bungalow to the rear of No. 17 will obstruct its views • Butt Lane is becoming over developed

The Canal and River Trust has not responded to the consultation by the date given, therefore it is assumed that they have no comments to make on the application

Representations 22 representations of objection, including one from Joan Walley MP, have been received on the application, which are summarised as follows: • The access is too narrow • Conflict between increased vehicular movements and pedestrians using the public footpath

Page 22 • Increase in traffic would cause problems joining the A34 from Slacken Lane • Loss of public amenity • Destruction of important open space and wildlife area • Over development of the local area • Loss of visual amenity and impairment of views to rear of No. 17 • The long dwelling proposed to rear of 17 will look like a barn and be very imposing • Number of windows overlooking existing properties is of concern • Slacken Lane includes a hidden culvert if damaged will lead to flooding • One of the conditions for building the bungalow “The Shires” was that the public footpath should not be more than 10 foot in width • Danger of more traffic is of concern • Maps and plans submitted do not reflect land ownership and the true width of Slacken Lane outside the development site • Increase in noise, traffic pollution and deliveries will cause disturbance to existing residents • Lack of green space in the area generally • Concern that the land is waterlogged which could be exacerbated if developed • Local infrastructure cannot cope with increase in development already permitted • If this application is approved it will open the gates for the larger area beyond to be developed • Losing important social beneficial uses • Introducing unnatural features to the landscape • Loss of important trees, hedges and other vegetation and habitats for wildlife • Conflict with character of the area • Better alternative sites available in the Borough • Primary schools in the area are already over subscribed

Applicant/agent’s submission A Design and Access Statement, utilities information, a contaminated land phase 1 desk study, an Arboricultural implications assessment and an acoustic report have been submitted along with the requisite plans and application form.

These documents are available for inspection at the Guildhall and on www.newcastle- staffs.gov.uk/planning/SlackenLane

KEY ISSUES

This is an application for full planning permission for 6 No. bungalows and the formation of new accesses at Slacken Lane, Butt Lane, which is within the urban area of Kidsgrove as indicated by the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The site forms an arc around No. 17 Slacken Lane, with one dwelling proposed to the rear of No. 17 served from its own access, and 5 bungalows proposed to the south east of No. 17 Slacken Lane which would share an access.

Slacken Lane is an un-adopted road and has a public right of way running along and adjoining the site’s frontages.

The key issues in the determination of this application are considered to be: • The principle of residential development of the site • Highway Safety and access issues • Design and impact on the character of the area

Page 23 • Waste and recyclable materials storage and collection arrangements • Impact upon residential amenity • Impact on trees and hedgerows

The principle of residential development of the site

The site is within the urban area, as identified on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map. The site is currently un developed, however works commenced on an ex servicemens club some years ago, and a certificate of lawful development was granted for this development to be able to lawfully be completed in 2010, meaning that the site has the potential to be developed into an ex servicemens club without the need for further planning permission.

Area Spatial Policy 5 of the Core Spatial Strategy seeks to provide 600 dwellings in the Kidsgrove area over the plan period to 2026. The National Planning Policy Framework specifies that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this case, the creation of 6 residential units in Butt Lane Kidsgrove with access to a good range of local facilities and reasonably good transport links to both Kidsgrove and Newcastle Town Centre, is considered to be a sustainable development.

The delivery of this site is taken account within the calculation for the Borough’s five year housing supply and given the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land a refusal of planning permission could, depending upon the reason for that decision, result in further shortfall in this supply.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that residential development applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. In this case given that the policies favour the proposal there is no conflict between such policies and that within the NPPF.

Overall your officers consider that the development would be a sustainable use of the site in the urban area, and it is considered that the proposal complies with the development plan in terms of the principle of residential development.

Highway safety and access issues

The proposed development is served off an unadopted and unmade highway, Slacken Lane, which does not have junction radii at its junction with the A34. Slacken Lane narrows down to a width of less than 4m and effectively only serves as a public footpath at that point. The proposal provides an access to one of the properties from the wider park of Slacken Lane, with the remaining 5 properties accessed from the narrower part.

The planning application does not include details of any improvements in the width of Slacken Lane demonstrating that vehicles associated with the development and pedestrians using to footpath would not be in conflict. In addition dimensions of the visibility splays at the junction with the A34 are not provided demonstrating that the additional vehicles serving the development could enter and leave the site safely.

Page 24 In the absence of such information, which has been requested prior to the submission, and during the determination of this application, the applicant has not demonstrated that a safe access to the development can be achieved for vehicular and pedestrian use.

The Highways Authority has confirmed that, should the application be approved, a contribution of £4000 in the form of a unilateral undertaking is required, to contribute towards the Newcastle (urban) Transport and Development Strategy (NTADs).

Design and impact on the character of the area

The NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong sense of place, be mixed use, respond to local character and history but not prevent appropriate innovation, create safe and accessible environments and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. It states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

The Newcastle and Stoke on Trent Urban Design SPD (2010) states that it is important that living environments should be integrated into their surroundings, to make sure that there is good accessibility between different parts of a place, and also to help reinforce a positive identity for the area. This needs to be based upon an appraisal of the site in its surroundings to ensure that development relates well to existing facilities, connects to the surrounding context and responds positively to the site and surroundings.

Policy R3 of the Urban Design SPD states the importance of new housing relating well to its surroundings, by not ignoring the existing environment and responding to and enhancing it. The discussion after the policy highlights the importance of new housing development enhancing the character of the surrounding area.

Policy R5 of the urban Design SPD states that buildings must define the street space with a coherent building line that relates to existing building lines where they form a positive characteristic of the area. This policy goes on to state that infill development should generally follow the existing building line. Designers must consider how continuous the building line should be and whether to continue an existing local pattern or whether new housing can add richness to the character of the area. Policy R12 of the Urban Design SPD states that residential development should be designed to contribute towards improving the character and quality of the area.

The application site curves around No. 17 Slacken Lane, and would bound this dwelling on three sides, with one dwelling to the rear and five dwellings to the south eastern side of No. 17. The character of the street is of dwellings facing onto the road and whilst some dwellings back onto Slacken Lane from Congleton Road and Pickwick Place, there is no backland development on the north side of the lane.

The dwelling to the rear of No. 17 Slacken Lane is very long and narrow with all principle windows on one elevation. This is dictated by the narrowness of the site at this point, rather than the character and form of dwellings in the area, and appears to be ‘squashed’ into the site. The dwellings would not conform with the existing building line and character, which is characterised by dwellings facing onto Slacken Lane. It is considered that the layout of the other proposed dwellings would not contribute to the character or quality of Slacken Lane and would relate poorly to the lane, in particular to No. 17.

Page 25

Overall, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would not relate well to the existing context and would have a detrimental impact upon the form and character of the area, and would be in conflict with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and the Urban Design SPD.

Impact upon residential amenity

It is important to assess how a proposed development will impact upon existing residents and proposed occupants of new development, to ensure they benefit from acceptable residential amenity standards.

The Environmental Health Division of the Borough Council recommends that the noise levels identified in the submitted noise assessment need to be achieved for all dwellings should the application be approved.

In terms of loss of amenity, the dwelling that would be most obviously affected by the development would be No. 17, which would have a dwelling to the rear and five dwellings to the south east.

There would be 22 metres between front facing windows of the dwellings to the south east of No. 17 and the side elevation of No. 17 Slacken Lane, which meets the distance requirements for facing windows. There would be an intervening vehicle access for the five dwellings and retained trees and hedgerows to further screen overlooking, and overall the amenity achieved for the proposed dwellings and in relation to No. 17 is considered acceptable. They would all have satisfactory sized gardens and parking areas that would meet the requirements of the SPD.

The proposed dwelling to the rear would have three high level windows facing towards No. 17, and these would all serve a corridor area in the proposed dwelling. Therefore, in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy, the distance achieved between these two dwellings (approximately 11.5 metres) would be acceptable and no loss of privacy would ensue. The dwelling to the rear of No. 17 would have an acceptable sized garden and parking area.

It is considered that the proposed development would cause no loss of light to any neighbouring dwellings.

Overall, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of residential amenity.

Impact on trees and hedgerows

Policy N12 of the Local Plan states that the Council will resist development that would involve the removal of any visually significant tree, shrub or hedge, whether mature or not, unless the need for the development is sufficient to warrant the tree loss and that loss cannot be avoided by appropriate siting or design.

An Arboricultural Implications Assessment has been submitted indicating that no trees are proposed to be removed as part of the application.

The site is identified as semi-natural open space in the Green Space Strategy; the site forms a part of a larger area of open space part of which is in public ownership and part in private ownership. The section that is affected by this proposal lies within the privately owned space. This site is not presently publically accessible and is bounded by security fencing.

Page 26 It would appear that both access driveways on this site are within the RPA (Root Protection Area) of trees to be retained. As such the impact of the proposal on these trees should be properly assessed. The Landscape Division has requested an Arboricultural impact assessment to include details of how refuse vehicles enter and exit the site, but this is not considered necessary as refuse vehicles would not be entering the part of the site where the dwellings are to be located.

The narrow shape of this site along the northern boundary will leave little space for any meaningful landscaping. However should this development be approved the Landscape Division suggest that an appropriate landscaping condition is applied to secure landscaping along the south eastern boundary of the development.

Waste and recyclable materials storage and collection

From a waste management perspective the waste management division has concerns over the access to the proposed properties off Slacken Lane which is an un-adopted road, which is narrow and in a general poor state of repair. However they would have no objections to the development provided a waste collection point is agreed prior to the commencement of the development, which is close to Congleton Road. As the applicant has no ownership or control over land close to Congleton Road it is unclear as to whether this can be achieved, however.

Background Papers

Planning file Planning documents referred to

Date report prepared

17.5.13

Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 28 Land off Slacken Lane Kidsgrove

13/266/FUL

382800.000000 382900.000000 383000.000000 383100.000000 O to A ri a D 3 Lo 1

S ck Und O

UTH

Def RH H R .000000 .000000

RH 2a

FW F F Hardings Wood Def 354800 354800 Def

y 1 A Bd 8 & U nst F 127.9m o F nst Bdy o ro C Bo 10

MP .5 10a

12 1

5 11 1

LAC KEN

9 11 Warehou se

L 13 A N E

.000000 .000000 9

11 The Hawthorns 354700 354700

17 35

3 4

Garage

4 7

46 R

1 6

NGLET

CO 57 E

54 2 4

.000000 .000000 134.4m 19

60 P I CKW

TOWNFIELD CLOS I

59 2 C 2 15 K P LACE 354600 354600

1 2

Rach e

ls V i 14 ew

C 9 ha r 2 lo tt es Pl ace

10 7

5 30

5 Pa 8 th

24 139.1m 4

2 7

Club 1

12 19

.000000 .000000

3 1 6 18

4 This11 map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material

354500 with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 354500

1 © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes WOODL

Millstone Inn 108 143.8m Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings.

ANDS

(PH) 1 0

3 13

10 2 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012

67 5 1

4 07 d

6 2

to 5

6 25

AVE

NUE 24 13 MILLS 12 382800.000000 382900.000000 383000.000000 383100.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council ¯ 1:2,000 Planning & Development Services Page 29 Date 04.06.2013 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 30 Agenda Item 7

LAND SOUTH OF BIGNALL HILL MR NICHOLAS TRICKETT 13/00274/FUL

The Application is for full permission for the retention of a vehicle access crossing.

The site is within the Green Belt and an area of Landscape Restoration as indicated by the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The application has been brought to Committee at the request of two Councillors as a great deal of public anxiety exists towards this proposal, due to poor highway visibility, loss of trees, removal of pit shaft warning signs, visual impact on the entrance gateway to Bignall End.

The 8 week determination period for this application expires on 10th June 2013.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse :- The formation of an access could result in highway danger and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that visibility splays, that are appropriate to the speed of vehicles using the highway, can be achieved. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

The Local Planning Authority has corresponded with the Applicant to obtain material which would demonstrate that the required visibility essential for a safe vehicle access can be achieved, and so comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the adopted Development Plan.

Policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to this decision:

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Strategy 2006-26 (adopted 2009)

Strategic Aim 15: To protect diversity of wildlife and habitats; Strategic Aim 16: To eliminate poor quality development; Policy ASP6: Rural Area Spatial Policy; Policy CSP1: Design Quality.

Newcastle –under-Lyme Local Plan 2011

Policy S3: Development in the Green Belt; Policy N12: Development and Protection of trees; Policy N13: Felling and Pruning of trees; Policy N21: Area of Landscape Restoration.

Other Material Considerations

Relevant National Policy Guidance :

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) The Planning System: General Principles (January 2005)

Page 31

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance SPD (Nov 2010)

Waste Management and Recycling Planning Practice Guidance Note (January 2011)

Relevant Planning History

None.

Views of Consultees

Audley Parish Council object to this application due to the following reasons -

• The application is in a green belt area; • There are concerns for public safety as there are 3 mineshafts in the area and the mineshaft signs have been removed; • The stile on the public footpath has been removed; • There is concerns of danger surrounding vehicle access across the footpath; • From a health & safety point the approach from brow of the hill is very dangerous.

The Highway Authority recommends refusal as there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the access is safe. The information that is necessary relates to:

• The use of the site. • The type of vehicles using the site and the number. • The speed of vehicles using the highway and the required visibility splays taking account of the speed survey. • How the proposal affects the current public footpath which runs through the site.

The Coal Authority has no objection to this application. Records indicate that within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which should be considered as part of development proposals; and that part of the application site has been subject to past coal mining activities, specifically the presence of recorded mine entries. However, the recorded mine entries are not located within the specific part of the site where the development is proposed.

Rights of Way Officer - Staffordshire County Council:

The County Council Rights of Way Section has not replied by the due date and as such it is assumed that they have no comments on the application.

Representations

Four letters of objection have been received and are summarised as follows;

• On unsighted bend and as such there is inadequate visibilty; • It is a former colliery area, the scene of a disaster, with two shafts on the site. The mine shaft warning signs have been removed, as has the footpath stile. • Woodland and habitat loss.

Page 32

The representations received are available for inspection at the Guildhall and on www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/planning/BignallHill

Key Issues

The site is within the Green Belt in an Area of Landscape Restoration. The application is for full planning permission for the retention of a vehicular access and dropped kerb from a classified road (B5500 Bignall Hill) to an area of cleared woodland previously in agricultural/forestry use.

The proposal does not relate to the use of the site and as such would have no material impact on the wildlife within the site. As such the main issues for consideration in the determination of this application are whether the development would constitute appropriate development in the Green Belt, and if it is inappropriate if there are any very special circumstances to justify the development; highway safety and impact on the character and quality of the landscape.

Appropriate Development in the Green Belt?

The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 87 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 90 advises that forms of development including engineering operations are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do no conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Taking this into consideration it is considered that the development is appropriate in the Green Belt and as such there is no requirement to provide very special circumstances to justify the development.

Highway Safety

The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 9 states that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in people’s quality of life, including improving the conditions in which people live work, travel and take leisure.

The Highways Authority has objected to the creation of the new access. Unless an appropriate visibility splay, taking into account the speed of vehicles on the highway, is provided together with any other works required by the Highways Authority can be achieved the access could result in a highway danger. In the absence of such information, therefore, it is considered that the application as submitted would not comply with the NPPF and as such should be refused.

Impact on the Landscape

Policy N12 of the Local Plan ‘Development and Protection of trees’ states that the Council will resist development that would involve the removal of any visually significant tree and Policy N13 indicates that the felling or unnecessary pruning of trees will not be supported by the Council. Whilst it is known that there has been trees felled within the site, that is not in connection with the formation of the access and as such it is considered that the development does not conflict with these policies.

Background Papers

Page 33 Planning file Planning documents referred to

Date report prepared

15 May 2013

Page 34 Land south of Bignall Hill

13/274/FUL

381700.000000 381800.000000 381900.000000 382000.000000 382100.000000

f e D .000000 .000000 350800 350800

Pond

188.0mTo Au dley

5 4

Bdy

rd a W 195.4m .000000 .000000

350700 ton 350700 199.8m To Chester

214.2m B 5500 204.4m .000000 .000000 350600 350600

C H .000000 .000000 350500 350500 .000000 .000000

22m R dy . 350400 1 350400

Ward B

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012 .000000 .000000

.000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 350300 381700 381800 381900 382000 382100 350300 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council ¯ 1:2,500 Planning & Development Services Page 35 Date 04.06.2013 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 36 Agenda Item 8

ALDERHAY FARM 58 HARRISEAHEAD LN HARRISEAHEAD NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME

MR STEPHEN GALLIMORE 13/00232/FUL

The Application is for full permission for the erection of a portal framed agricultural building.

The site is in the rural area, within the Green Belt, around 35 metres from the urban Area.

The application has been brought to Committee at the request of two Councillors as the building would be over dominant and not in keeping with other nearby buildings. This building would have a significant impact on its immediate surroundings and the residents.

th The statutory 8 week period for the determination of this application expires on 30 May 2013

Recommendation

Permit subject to conditions relating to the following matters :-

1. Standard Time limit 2. Approved plans/drawings/documents 3. Materials used to be approved.

Reason for Recommendation

The applicant has demonstrated that the development is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry in the locality, the application therefore complies with Policy S3 of the adopted Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 (LP). The development will not erode the character and appearance of the wider landscape and as such will be acceptable in an area of Landscape Restoration and will accord with Policy N21 of the LP. The building is of appropriate appearance for a farm building in this location meeting Policy CSP1 of the Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Strategy 2006-26 (adopted 2009). The development accordingly complies with the Aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

The Local Planning Authority has corresponded with the Applicant’s Agent to obtain material which would demonstrate that the development is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry in the locality, and so comply with the adopted Development Plan. The submission as expanded is considered to be a sustainable form of development and so complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to this decision:

Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Strategy 2006-26 (adopted 2009) (CSS)

Strategic Aim 16: To eliminate poor quality development; Policy ASP6: Rural Area Spatial Policy; Policy CSP1: Design Quality.

Newcastle Under Lyme Local Plan 2011(LP)

Policy S3: Development in the Green Belt; Policy N21: Area of Landscape Restoration.

Page 37 Other Material Considerations

Relevant National Policy Guidance:

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) The Planning System: General Principles (January 2005)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance SPD (Nov 2010) Space Around Dwellings Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2004)

Waste Management and Recycling Planning Practice Guidance Note (January 2011)

Relevant Planning History

11/00331/FUL REFUSE 05.08.2011 Erection of replacement detached Dwelling.

Views of Consultees

Kidsgrove Town Council object to the application because of over dominance – it is a substantial building, which would have a significant impact on, and is not in keeping with the neighbouring properties.

The Environmental Health Division has no objections subject to notifications on Considerate Contactors and importation of waste.

The Landscape Development Section considers that the proximity and size of the development in relation to views from neighbouring properties would mean that any screen planting to soften the impact of the structure from views from neighbouring properties would have little effect. The Section goes on to advise that should this development be approved it an appropriate landscaping condition should be applied to soften the visual impact of the development from neighbouring properties and the wider landscape setting.

Representations

Three letters of objection have been received which are summarised as follows; • Close proximity of the proposed building which will be less than 10m from a kitchen window in a property which was extended in 2006, which extension does not appear to be reflected in map used; the proposed development is considerably closer to dwelling than is illustrated in the plan; • The proposed building will considerably reduce the light and view; • This development is a further eyesore; • The view which overlooks the farm will be totally obscured and reduced to less than 10 metres; • Property will permanently be in the shadow of this huge building; • The development will have a detrimental impact on the value of properties which will be overlooked by the portal framed building; • The site has been allowed to become derelict and used as a dumping ground for old farm machinery and is not used for grazing; • The worry of pest infestation is heightened; • Temporary buildings being given planning permission only to be replaced after a number of years have passed by larger permanent erections; • Siting is too close to residential properties. The Applicant has ample land to enable the structure to be resited further away from the residential properties but still convenient/accessible for the use proposed.

Applicants/agents submission

Page 38 A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application the main points of which are summarised as follows;

• The proposed building is specified to be used for the purposes of the storage of animal feed, farm produce and farm machinery. • The location of the building has been chosen after assessment of the farm and would be adjacent to existing farm buildings. • The building would be of portal frame construction and have box profile sheet cladding. Access will be taken from existing farmyard.

In addition further information has been provided within a letter, which is summarised as follows;

• The proposed building is necessary for the efficient operation of agriculture on the applicants land. • The applicant needs to increase the amount of food, produce and bedding kept on the farm. • The facilities already existing at Alderhay Farm provide insufficient storage space for the amount of bedding needed. • The proposed building will provide storage for bedding straw which is required as the failure to replace straw, or it getting wet can laws to respiratory disease; storage requirement for feedstuffs; and to store farm machinery which presently has to be stored in the open. • Open storage leads to deterioration and increased maintenance time, and lower farm efficiency.

These documents and the representations referred to above are available for inspection at the Guildhall and on www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/planning/AlderhayFarm

Key Issues

The application is for full planning permission for the erection of a portal framed agricultural building.

The site is within the Green Belt in an Area of Landscape Restoration as indicated on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The key issues in the determination of the application are: • Is the development considered appropriate development in the Green Belt? • The design of the building and its impact on the Landscape. • Residential amenity. • If inappropriate development, are there any very special circumstances to justify approval?

Is the development considered appropriate development in the Green Belt?

The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 89 advises that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it is within the list of exceptions that includes buildings for agriculture and forestry.

The building is for agricultural purposes and the applicant has provided a reasoned statement that the proposal is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry in the locality. The application proposal is accordingly appropriate in the Green Belt.

The design of the building and its impact on the Landscape

The National Planning Policy Framework Section 7 requires good design; it is a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning (para 56) and permission should be refused for development of poor design (para 64).

Page 39

The proposed building is of portal framed construction clad externally on three elevations with box profile sheeting and measuring 13.7m by 18.3m to a height of approximately 5.8m. Its utilitarian design is typical of modern agricultural buildings.

The site falls within an Areas of Landscape Restoration and Policy N21 of the LP states it will be necessary to demonstrate that development will not further erode the quality and character of the landscape.

The application building is set immediately adjacent to a long established farm yard containing other agricultural buildings and adjacent to ribbon development houses. In this location it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the wider landscape.

The Landscape Development Section advises that the proximity and size of the development in relation to views from neighbouring properties would mean that any screen planting to soften the impact of the structure from views from neighbouring properties would have little effect. Taking this into consideration any requirement to undertake landscaping could not be justified.

Residential Amenity

The development is set in an existing farmyard which is partly to the rear of ribbon development of houses along Harriseahead Lane.

Whilst the adopted Space Around Dwellings SPG relates to new dwellings, which is not proposed in this application, it is considered that its guidance is useful to assess the impact of the proposed building on the amenity of adjoining residents.

The proposed building is sited facing towards windows of existing properties and could affect daylight. To assess such an impact the SPG, at SD9, indicates that new buildings should be o designed so that there is no objection to daylight beyond a vertical angle of 45 . The o proposed building, being 4.3m high at the eaves, would not break such a vertical 45 line taken from the rear ground floor window of number 56 Harriseahead Lane which is the closest dwelling, being approximately 8m from the proposal, or from windows in adjoining houses. The guidance SD9 given in Space around Dwellings as to light loss is accordingly met by the proposal. Loss of view is not material to the determination of a planning application.

The building is to be used for agricultural storage purposes within an existing farm yard. It is not considered that the proposal will give rise to any disturbance over and above that which may arise from the activities on the site that would justify the refusal of the proposal.

Background Papers

Planning file Planning documents referred to

Date report prepared

15 May 2013

Page 40 Alderhay Farm, 58 Harriseahead Lane, Harriseahead

13/232/FUL

385900.000000 .000000 .000000

6 3

355800 355800

44 5

3 7

8 4

56 .000000 .000000 68 355700 355700

Path (um)

73 75

Application site

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes

.000000 Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. .000000 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012 355600 355600

385900.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council ¯ 1:1,000 Planning & Development Services Page 41 Date 04.06.2013 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 42 Agenda Item 9

MRS A BARKER ON BEHALF OF MRS CHESWORTH LAND TO REAR OF 17 AND 19 BIDDULPH ROAD, HARRISEAHEAD 13/00306/COU

The application is the for the retention of a change of use of agricultural land to external amenity/ garden area at 17 and 19 Biddulph Road, Harriseahead, which are two dwellings located within the Green Belt and an Area of Landscape Restoration as indicated by the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

Notwithstanding the decision of the Authority to refuse a previous application for this proposal and to authorise the taking of enforcement action the Planning Committee at its th meeting on the 26 March resolved interalia that an application be invited with respect to the change of use.

This report both makes a recommendation on the application, and also on any enforcement action that should be taken .

th The statutory 8 week determination period for this application expires on the 10 June 2013.

RECOMMENDATION S

(1) Refuse for the following reason - the development involves a change of use of land from agricultural land to garden land and accordingly constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The harm caused by the development, which would not maintain the openness of the Green Belt, taken with that to the landscape, is not clearkt outweighed by the material considerations in this case. As such the application is contrary to Policy S3 of the Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

(2) That the previous decision having regard to the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations that it is expedient to take enforcement action be reaffirmed, and that the Head of Central Services is authorised to take all necessary actions in this respect, requiring the garden use to cease, the removal of all garden planting and paraphernalia including the shed/summer house, raised beds, pond, washing lines, ornaments, tables and chairs, and block paving, and the erection of a fence or similar separating the lawful residential curtilage from the land to the rear - allowing a small service strip to be left immediately to the rear of the properties to allow for maintenance.

Reason for the recommendations

1. Because the development is inappropriate development within the Green Belt and the very special circumstances that are required to justify such development do not exist in this case

2. The unauthorised material change of use of land has taken place within the last 10 years. The change of use constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and the harm caused by the development, which would not maintain the openness of the Green Belt, taken with that to the landscape, is not clearly outweighed by the material considerations in this case. It is not considered that conditions could address this objection to the development.

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

Prior to the submission of an application to retain the use the applicant was advised that the principle of such development in this Green Belt location is unsustainable and does not conform with the provisions of the NPPF. It is considered that conditions attached to a grant of planning permission would not overcome the issue of the unacceptability of the use in principle.

Page 43

Policies and proposals in the approved development plan relevant to this decision:-

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006 - 2026 (Adopted 2009) (CSS) Policy CSP1 Design Quality Policy ASP6: Rural Area Spatial Policy

Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 (NLP) Policy S3: Development in the Green Belt Policy N21: Areas of Landscape Restoration

Other Material Considerations

Relevant National Policy Guidance: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control and its related Good Practice Guide The Planning System – General Principles Circular 11/95 – the use of conditions in planning permissions

Supplementary Planning Guidance Space Around Dwellings (July 2004)

Relevant Planning History

02/00987/OUT Erection of detached dwelling (in garden of 17 Biddulph Road, to become 19 Biddulph Road) – Outline permission refused 26.9.2002, allowed on appeal 30.5.2003

03/00868/FUL Erection of a detached dwelling (detailed proposal) (in garden of 17 Biddulph Road)- permitted 8.1.2004

06/00075/FUL Conversion of existing disused barn/stable at 17 Biddulph Road into granny flat including rear dormer extension – permitted 29.3.2006

12/00780/COU Retention of amenity/garden area (change of use from agricultural land) – refused 22.1.2013 – no appeal lodged to date

Views of Consultees on the application

Kidsgrove Town Council – Support the application, but are concerned that no further development of this land should take place and request that this be a condition of the permission

Representations received in response to publicity given to this application (individuals, but not the signatories of the petition of support, who had expressed an interest directly to the Borough Council were notified of the application and invited to submit comments, and the application was advertised both by means of a site notice and a press notice)

The petition, received in March, was signed by 139 individuals and asked that the Council reverse its earlier decision that No.17’s garden be returned to its former state.

Two representations of support have been now received which are summarised as follows: • The resident did not intend to purposefully flout regulations, and she is elderly • It is a small area of land which has been turned into an attractive garden • It supports wildlife • one suggests that permission should be given until the death of the elderly resident

One representation of objection has now been received, which is summarised as follows: • There are enough brownfield sites in the Country already • No consideration to preserving the countryside

Page 44

Applicant’s submission One of the occupiers of 17 Biddulph Road makes the following points The occupier of No. 17 purchased the property (No. 17) from Mr and Mrs Chesworth. The property (No. 17) has a small garden with a lawn but no plants. The house that the occupier of No 17 moved from had an acre garden with a small nursery, which they ran with the occupier’s mother. Gardening and plants were a very important part of their lives, but the mother’s health deteriorated and they decided to downsize. The occupier decided to buy 17 Biddulph Road because Mrs Chesworth offered to give them some land to the rear to enlarge the garden. Both the occupiers of 17 and 19 decided to put ponds in to attract wildlife. The occupiers of No 17 discovered early on that the land tended to flood badly, so they had the garden landscaped at a cost of £9000 The garden is now very beautiful with much wildlife Due to the mother’s ill health she only goes shopping once a week and the garden gives her therapy and exercise Would not have considered purchasing the property without a garden Unaware that they had broken planning laws or needed permission The correct planning permission was gained for the conversion of the stable and no issues about the garden were raised at that time There has never been any complaints as far as they are aware If allowed to keep the garden they understand certain restrictions could be imposed regarding structures such as sheds and greenhouses It has always been their intention never to put any structures or even a large tree in the garden because they want it to blend in with the beautiful views of the horses and countryside They approached two local councillors, Cllr Waring and Cllr Elsie Bates who are giving their full support in saving the garden

A supporting statement received from the owners of 19 Biddulph Road makes the following point:- th • They bought the property on the 25 January 2013; • They did not know about the garden issue until after they had spent money and time on proposed house purchase; • The previous owner informed the current owners of the garden issue, but did not mention that the patio was also an issue; • The patio area is required for maintenance of the house; • Area of land in ownership is 1.26 acres, whilst garden area is only 0.02 acres; • Moving from a house with a garden and both owners enjoy gardening; • Aims with the land are to keep animals and plant hedgerows to encourage wildlife. Also aim to eradicate the drainage problems with the land; • As far as they are aware there have not been any complaints about the garden and patio area; • Understand restrictions could be imposed if permitted to keep the garden, such as restriction on sheds and greenhouses, which they would comply with; • Would not want to plant any trees as would detract from view of Mow Cop Castle; • Councillor Waring and Councillor Elsie Bates support their case; and • Kidsgrove Town Council support the case.

Background Information Planning permission was applied for retrospectively under application 12/00780/COU for the change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden land at the rear of 17 and 19 Biddulph Road, Harriseahead, which are two neighbouring detached dwellings located within the Green Belt and an Area of Landscape Restoration, as indicated on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The application was refused for the following reasons: 1. The development involves a change of use of land from agricultural land to garden land and accordingly constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved

Page 45

except in very special circumstances. The harm caused by the development, which would not maintain the openness of the Green Belt, is not outweighed by the circumstances advanced in the application submission. As such the application is contrary to Policy D5B of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996- 2011, Policy S3 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

2. The development, involving a change of use from agricultural land to garden land is considered to erode the character and quality of the Area of Landscape Restoration, contrary to Policy N21 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011, and Policies NC1 and NC2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 2011.

The decision was then made to authorise the taking of enforcement action against the unauthorised th development. In the light of the decision made by the Planning Committee at its meeting on the 26 March no action has been taken with respect to that authorisation, pending the submission and determination of the application now before the Committee.

At No. 19 the land is principally now laid to grass (a pond having been removed on the grounds of safety) with a summerhouse/garden shed and a small area of planting. In the other case (at number 17) there is a pond surrounded by walling and rockery features with a covered seating area, and various raised beds.

The dwelling known as No. 19 Biddulph Road was originally refused planning permission (reference 02/00987/OUT), but subsequently gained planning approval on appeal. One of the three reasons for refusal by the Authority was the applicant had failed to demonstrate the site could accommodate a dwelling together with an adequate amenity space around it and any extension of the residential curtilage would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In allowing the proposal the Inspector noted that the (proposed) dwelling would be close to the boundary with the adjoining field, that he had seen that this was not an unusual arrangement in the area, that the amount of space proposed to the side of the dwelling would provide adequate amenity space for a dwelling of this size, that there had been no pressure from existing residents to increase the size of their gardens because of the proximity of agricultural activity within the adjoining field and finally that taking land into the curtilage of the dwelling would require planning permission, at which time the Council could appraise the proposal in line with extant planning policies.

The size of the garden extensions amount to approximately 250 square metres at No. 17 and 150 square metres at No. 19 Biddulph Road. The length of the garden extension at No.17 is just over 12 metres (39 feet), and the length of the garden extension at No. 19 is just over 13 metres (42 feet).

Given the decision already reached the key issues in the determination of the application now before the Authority are considered to be: • Is the development appropriate development in the Green Belt? • Is the impact of the proposal upon the Area of Landscape Restoration and countryside acceptable? • If inappropriate development, do the required very special circumstances exist to justify approval and retention of the use?

Is the development appropriate development in the Green Belt? Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

As the NPPF indicates, only “due weight” should now be given to relevant policies within the Local Plan according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF; the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that may be given. NLP Policy S3 indicates that there is a presumption, within the Green Belt, against any form of development other than certain types which are listed. None expressly apply to this case.

Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF set out the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt.

Page 46

Changes of use of land are not listed within the NPPF as appropriate development within a Green Belt. Therefore, because of this, the starting point for the consideration of the change of use of the land must be that it is inappropriate development in this Green Belt location.

Is the impact of the proposal upon the Area of Landscape Restoration and countryside acceptable?

One of the two previous grounds of refusal was that the development eroded the character and quality of the countryside, an Area of Landscape Restoration. Policy N21 on Areas of Landscape Restoration indicates that the Council will support, subject to (compliance with) other plan policies, proposals that will help restore the character and improve the quality of the landscape, and that within such areas it will be necessary to demonstrate that the development will not further erode the character or quality of the landscape. Permission is not being sought to retain the summerhouse/garden shed that is located within No.19’s area, but nevertheless implicit in such a change of use must be typical garden paraphernalia – in the case of No.17 that currently means features such as raised beds, rockeries, a pond, garden ornaments and a covered seating area – as well as the type of planting associated with a garden - whilst in the case of No.19 there is only a small rockery area – at least at present, following the removal of the pond. The site is not a prominent one, at least in terms of views from adjacent roads and the view of it from the public footpath at the rear is at such a distance and at such an angle that the development cannot be considered to intrude into the landscape. However it cannot be said that the development has restored the character of the landscape or improved its quality – rather it has introduced a new feature, and there is at least some diminution or erosion of the previously open character of this landscape. Whilst upon reflection the harm associated with this aspect is not in itself grounds for withholding permission, it does need to be taken into account below in weighing up whether the required very special circumstances exist.

If inappropriate development, do the required very special circumstances exist to justify approval and retention of the use?

The NPPF at paragraph 88 states:-

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

A case was advanced with the previous planning application by the owner of No. 17 Biddulph Road, although not by the then owner of No.19 – a property which has since changed hands. That latter case was made more recently.

The owners of No.17 purchased the property knowing that the dwelling had no rear garden of any size, but the seller offered to sell them some land to the rear which they decided to use to extend their garden. The fact that the property only had a small garden originally is not considered to be a very special circumstance for allowing encroachment into the Green Belt. There is a front garden of No.17 but the occupiers have elected to pave it across almost its full width – to provide parking spaces and a turning area. The health of the occupants of the dwelling is not a reason to allow permanent encroachment into the Green Belt as it could be argued in many other cases and the garden would remain long after the personal circumstances of the occupants have changed. Spending money to improve the garden is similarly not considered a very special circumstance, nor is the fact that they were unaware that they had broken planning laws or needed permission for the garden extension.

The case provided by the owners of No.19 similarly does not suggest that exceptional or unusual circumstances of public benefit exist in this case

Having considered the case put forward, it is concluded that there are no considerations that clearly outweigh the harm that is caused to the openness of the Green Belt and to the landscape, by virtue of the change of use to garden land that has occurred. For this reason the application is recommended for refusal.

Planning Assessment and the expediency of taking enforcement action

Page 47

In determining whether or not it is expedient to take enforcement action with respect to unauthorised development, the Local Planning Authority is required to have regard to the provisions of the approved development plan for the area, and any other material considerations. The relevant provisions are indicated above.

It is considered that the only way to rectify the inappropriate development in the Green Belt is to require the garden use to cease, the removal of all garden planting and garden paraphernalia including the shed/summerhouse, raised beds, pond, washing lines, ornaments, tables and chairs, and block paving, and the erection of a fence or similar separating the lawful residential curtilage from the land to the rear. It would be appropriate to allow a small service strip to be left immediately to the rear of the properties to allow for maintenance.

Ceasing use as a garden and removing this paraphernalia associated with domestic garden use will remove the harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The Committee, if in agreement with the recommendation to refuse the application, has authority to also authorise the taking of enforcement action. Given the apparent passage of time since at least part of the breach of control occurred, it would be unwise to delay the taking of such action (say to allow a planning appeal to be made and determined), and accordingly the second recommendation given is that the previous decision to take enforcement action should be reaffirmed.

If however the Committee considers that, notwithstanding your Officer’s previous decisions and recommendations now made, to grant planning permission, careful consideration should be given to the use of conditions. Members should note that once the use of the land as residential curtilage becomes lawful (whether by reason of the passage of time and a lack of enforcement action by the Council, or by reason of an express grant of planning permission for a change of use (as here applied for)) then the householders would enjoy the normal permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings over the land in question. If exercised this right would lead to an even further reduction in the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst your Officer does not consider that the use of a condition withdrawing permitted development rights for buildings within the application area would satisfactorily address the objections to the proposal, members may wish to note that it is possible, in exceptional circumstances to (a) withdraw permitted development rights for such buildings and (b) to attach a condition requiring the removal, within an appropriate period of time of the summerhouse/garden shed within the area. Any failure to comply with that condition could itself be the subject of enforcement action at a later date. Even thought there is a presumption against the use of conditions which withdraw permitted development rights other than in exceptional circumstances both conditions would be fully justified in this case.

A third possibility is that the Committee may agree that garden use of the land is unacceptable, and may wish to obtain the removal of all of the garden features except for the pond. In such a case the appropriate course of action would be to refuse the application and authorise enforcement action with steps that reflect those wishes

Your Officer maintains that the decision to refuse the application and to take enforcement action is one that is soundly based on the provisions of the development plan and that all other material considerations have been appropriately taken into account. Members do need to be mindful that precedents can be established by decisions (when all circumstances are equal). Your officers have noted another similar breach of planning control in the vicinity of the site. Finally it is not the number of representations which are received either in support of or in opposition to a proposal that is material but rather whether they are founded on valid planning reasons.

Background Documents Development Plan National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Planning application files referred to.

Date report prepared 17.5.13

Page 48 17-19 Biddulph Road, Harriseahead

13/306/COU

.000000 .000000 18 386300 386400

31 15 .000000 .000000 356600 356600

She

lt 17

2 3 3 1

1 248.1m 11 7

LB a

12 2

164 22

GDN .000000 W .000000

6 VIE

R 356500 356500 1

MOO

.1m

154 The HeApplicationathers site

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Meadowside © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012

386300.000000 386400.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council ¯ 1:1,000 Planning & Development Services Page 49 Date 04.06.2013 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 50 Agenda Item 10

SHERRINGHAM, APEDALE ROAD, WOOD LANE MR AND MRS JOHNSON 13/00315/FUL

The Application is for full permission for a first floor bedroom extension and installation of rear dormer windows.

The site is within the village envelope of Wood Lane, wh ich is located within the rural area as indicated by the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The application has been brought to Committee as one of the applicants is an employee of the Council.

The 8 week determination period for this application expires on 13th June 2013.

RECOMMENDATION

Permit subject to conditions relating to the following matters :-

1. Standard Time limit 2. Approved plans/drawings/documents 3. Materials used to match those of the existing house.

Reason for Recommendation

Subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant adverse impact on visual or residential amenity that would justify a refusal of planning permission. The proposal accords with Policy CSP1 of Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Strategy 2006-26 and H18 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011, and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

The proposal is considered to be a sustainable form of development and so complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policies and proposals in the approved Development Plan relevant to this decision:

Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Strategy 2006-26 (adopted 2009)

Strategic Aim 16: To eliminate poor quality development; Policy ASP6: Rural Area Spatial Policy; Policy CSP1: Design Quality.

Newcastle Under Lyme Local Plan 2011

Policy H18: Design of Residential Extensions

Other Material Considerations

Relevant National Policy Guidance:

Page 51

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) The Planning System: General Principles (January 2005)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Space Around Dwellings (July 2004) Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance SPD (Nov 2010)

Waste Management and Recycling Planning Practice Guidance Note (January 2011)

Relevant Planning History

06/00354/FUL PERMIT 14.06.2006 Side extension, alterations and extensions to roof including front and rear dormers.

A further application has been received for this site, which has yet to be determined. That application is for the erection of detached dwelling formation of vehicular access and new vehicular access to Sherringham, reference 13/00344/OUT.

Views of Consultees

Audley Parish Council object as the application is in a green belt area.

Representations

None received.

Applicant’s/Agent’s Submission

The application details are available to view at the Guildhall or using the following link www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/planning/Sherringham2

Key Issues

This application is for full planning permission for a first floor bedroom extension and installation of rear dormer windows on a traditionally built dormer bungalow in a slightly elevated position.

The site is within the village envelope of Wood Lane, which is located within the rural area as indicated by the Local Development Framework Proposals Map. Notwithstanding the comments of Audley Parish Council, the site is not within the Green Belt.

The main issues for consideration in the determination of this application are the acceptability of the appearance of the proposals and residential amenity.

Appearance

Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Page 52 Policy H18 of the Local Plan requires residential extensions to be of materials and a design to fit in with those of the dwelling to be extended and not to detract materially from the character of the original dwelling or the integrity of the original design of the group of dwellings that form the street scene or setting.

The existing building is a dormer bungalow with a pitched roof containing an existing front dormer window which has a pitched roof and front gable, and two existing rear dormers, one smaller, the other larger built up directly from the rear elevation. Both of the rear dormers have flat roofs. The proposal would extend both of the rear dormers sideways further along the roof length. The outer wall of the larger dormer extension will be inset 150mm from the rear wall.

Being additions to the existing rear dormers which would not completely affect the shape of the roof of the property it is considered that the development will not have any material impact on the appearance of, or affect on the character of the house so is acceptable.

Residential Amenity

There is an open playing field to the rear. The proposal will not give rise to overlooking nor over dominance or shadowing of neighbours. There will be not any reduction in the area available for amenity for occupiers.

Overall it is considered that there would not be loss of amenity as a result of the proposal.

Background Papers

Planning File Development Plan National Planning guidance/statements

Date report prepared

15 th May 2013

Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 54 Sherringham, Apedale Road, Wood Lane

13/315/FUL

381000.000000 381100.000000

LD 1 S 9

11 2

15 0 Wood Lane Primary School

Wood Lane 7

14 SCHOOL CLOSE

12 1 5

.000000 .000000 3

350000 350000

e r Sch 11

t 7 o

ol PO

y Cen AD t

i LE RO

EDA 7 AP 6

1 mun

m ingham

Sherr Co

Linden Lea OAD

PEDALE R

8 1

4 The Harlequin

28 22

Coppice

lEW RK V PA Vie TRY

COUN

w .000000 .000000 1

Path 3 349900 349900

381000.000000 381100.000000 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council ¯ 1:1,000 Planning & Development Services Page 55 Date 04.06.2013 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 56 Agenda Item 11

21 RATHBONE AVENUE MAY BANK MISS C HORNE 13/00354/FUL

The application is for the retention of a rear conservatory measuring 4.9 metres by 6 metres in footprint.

The site is within the urban area of Newcastle as defined on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map.

The application has been brought to the Planning Committee because the applicant is an employee of the Council.

The statutory 8 week period for the determination of this application expires on 27 th June 2013.

RECOMMENDATION

Permit subject to conditions relating to the following matters :-

1. Approved plans/drawings/documents 2. Boundary treatments to be installed within 3 months of the date of the permission granted.

Reason for Recommendation

Taking into account the limited impact to public vantage points and that the extension replaced a detached garage, demolished to accommodate the proposal it is not considered that the development results in an adverse impact upon visual or residential amenity levels to those previously enjoyed to a degree that would justify the refusal of planning permission subject to the erection of the proposed boundary treatments detailed within the submitted plans.

Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with this application

This is considered to be a sustainable form of development and so complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policies and proposals in the approved Development Plan relevant to this decision:

Newcastle Under Lyme Local Plan 2011

Policy H18: Design of Residential Extensions

Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Strategy 2006-26 (adopted 2009)

Policy CSP1: Design Quality.

Other Material Considerations

Relevant National Policy Guidance:

Page 57 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control and its related Good Practice Guide

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Space Around Dwellings (July 2004) Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance SPD (Nov 2010)

Relevant Planning History

None.

Views of Consultees

None consulted.

Representations

A signed petition has been received with 7 neighbouring occupiers in support of the proposal on the basis that;

The conservatory improves the visual appearance of the property given that a prefabricated garage was demolished to accommodate the structure.

Consideration has been given to maintaining the privacy levels of neighbouring properties by installing obscured glazing and the structure is considered to enhance privacy levels between adjoining boundaries.

Applicant’s/Agent’s Submission

The application details and representation referred to above are available to view at the Guildhall or using the following link www.newcastle- staffs.gov.uk/planning/21Rathbone

Key Issues

The proposal is for the retention of a conservatory that has been erected without the benefit of planning consent in breach of planning control. The conservatory measures 4.9 metres by 6 metres in footprint and 3.2 metres rising to 3.8 metres in roof ridge height because of changes in ground levels. The conservatory has a hipped roof design. The position of the conservatory has been erected party on top of the foundations of a detached prefabricated garage which was demolished.

Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF state that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. In other cases and following this 12-month period (post 29th March 2013), due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

The key issues to address are:

1. the acceptability of the impact upon the character and appearance of the dwelling house and the surrounding area; and

Page 58 2. the acceptability of the impact upon residential amenity.

1. The acceptability of the impact to the character and appearance of the dwelling house and the surrounding area

Policy H18 of the Local Plan requires residential extensions to be of materials and a design to fit in with those of the dwelling to be extended and not to detract materially from the character of the original dwelling or the integrity of the original design of the group of dwellings that form the street scene or setting.

The conservatory has been built on the back of an existing single storey side/ rear extension and because of this projects an overall distance of 9.4 metres from the original rear wall of the dwelling house. Taking into account the size of the conservatory concerned which has a large footprint comparative to that of the main dwelling house and also the presence of the previous addition to the property the proposal is not considered to be a subordinate addition in policy H18 terms.

Whilst the conservatory is not considered to be a subordinate addition the view taken is that its presence does not result in significant harm to the appearance of the property or to the wider area because there are only very limited views of the structure from public vantage points and such views would not justify refusal.

2. The acceptability of the impact to residential amenity

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Space Around Dwellings’ provides guidance on privacy, daylight standards and environmental considerations. It sets out the provisions of how new buildings should allow adequate daylight to reach the principal windows of adjacent properties. It indicates that new buildings should not obstruct daylight beyond the horizontal angle of 45 degrees measured horizontally or vertically from the mid point of the nearest principal window of an adjacent property. Principal windows are defined as the largest windows of a lounge, dining room, dining kitchen or 2 largest bedrooms.

The owners/occupiers of number 19 Rathbone Avenue and numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7 Brampton Road are most affected by the proposal. The rear garden areas of numbers 1, 3 and 5 are small and there is a separation distance of around 5 metres between the rear elevation of number 5 and the conservatory measured at the closest point. The ground levels of numbers 3 and 5 are around half a metre lower than the rear garden of the application property. The side elevation of the detached prefabricated garage which has been demolished to accommodate the conservatory directly faced the rear of number 5.

Taking into account the rear facing windows of the properties along Brampton Road, notwithstanding the close proximity of the extension, the extension would not conflict with guidance safeguarding adequate light levels as set out in the SPG on space around dwellings (45 o measurement).

Number 19 Rathbone Avenue has a rear conservatory which projects 5 metres from its rear elevation and is not adversely impacted upon by the proposal when measured against the advice contained within the SPG. The previous presence of

Page 59 the detached prefabricated garage which was demolished to accommodate the conservatory also weighs in the proposals favour.

With respect to potential privacy concerns the conservatory has obscure glazing in both side elevations and also its roof. The applicant proposes to erect boundary fencing above a brick wall erected on the southern boundary shared with number 5 Brampton Road. With the proposed boundary treatment adequate privacy levels would be maintained. A planning condition is required to specify an appropriate period of time for its installation.

With respect to personal space requirements the amount of rear garden area remaining at the application property at 50 square metres is lower than the 65 square metre area. Outdoor space still remains available for daily activities such as the drying of clothes and sitting outside and the concerns relating to personal space standards are not considered of sufficient weight to justify the refusal of the application also taking into account the previous footprint of the detached garage and rear extension to which the conservatory now erected is attached to.

Background Papers

Planning File Development Plan National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Date report prepared

17 May 2013

Page 60 21 Rathbone Avenue, May Bank, Newcastle

13/354/FUL

385500.000000 385600.000000

35 4

5 8 2 Fa Garage 31 ctor UP y 1 PER 8 MAR

El )

Sub K ET 4 Sta E 6 SH

AN 5 5

B t

o Y 15

PEL STR MA REET

A T H 2 S T ( C E 5 72 3 1 STRE

H 1

7 RLES

HIG to BE 2

CHA

1 LLEF 0 7

IELD VIEW 8 11

166.9m 30 to 40 .000000 .000000

28a

347400 Victoria 347400 17 May Ba

(PH) 1 28

Prima 21

20 164.6m RA THBO D NE OA A R VEN Tennis Court U

11 12 11

TON P 9

M 2

1 1

162.8m .000000 .000000

AVENUE

12 10a

347300 347300 N 11 12

28 NUE E HOLDE V LD A 30 IE TF

5 21 6

1 23 2 0 2 1

160.5m

7 This map is reproduced35 from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes 9 Bidders NU Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings.20 VE

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council - 100019654 - 2012 A 2 T

.000000 Highfield .000000 ISCRO F 385500.000000 385600.000000 347200 Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council ¯ 1:1,250 347200 Planning & Development Services Page 61 Date 04.06.2013 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 62 Agenda Item 12

5 Year Housing Supply Assessment for the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme: 1 April 2012 to 31st March 2017

Purpose of the Report

To present the results of the 5 year supply assessment report for information purposes.

To provide guidance on the significance and impact of the 5 year supply on the Development Management decision making process.

Recommendations

1) That members note the results of the 5 year supply report.

2) That members note the significance of the 5 year supply in Development Management decision making.

Reasons To ensure the Council makes decisions in-line with up-to-date planning policy and the latest 5 year housing supply position.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report briefly outlines the findings of the 5 year housing supply assessment report and provide guidance of the significance of these findings on the Development Management or decision making process.

st 1.2 The report covers the Borough for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017 and demonstrates the extent to which the current supply of housing sites in the Borough contribute to a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. Full details of how the 5 year supply has been calculated are included in the 5 year housing supply assessment report now available on the Council’s website and they have therefore not been replicated in this committee report. The following link is to the relevant page on the website:- www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/planning/5yearhousingsupply

1.3 Local Planning Authorities are required to assess whether they can meet the housing requirement for their area. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that Local Planning Authorities update their 5 year housing land supply assessment on a yearly basis. Whether the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of ‘deliverable’ housing is important as it affects how planning applications for new housing are determined.

1.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has made changes to the calculation of the required housing land supply. Most significantly an additional housing land supply buffer (of either 5% or 20% depending on past delivery of housing) is now required. Secondly windfall sites (i.e. sites that have not been previously identified through the Local Plan process) can now be, where evidenced, included in the housing land supply. Finally there have also been changes in how any shortfall in housing delivery should be managed. Further details of these changes are outlined in the 5 year housing supply assessment report.

1.5 The assessment report calculates the 5 year housing supply using the Borough’s requirement of 5,700 net dwellings for the ‘plan period’ 2006-2026 (285 net dwellings per year), as set out in the adopted Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy (October 2009).

Page 63

2.0 KEY FINDINGS

2.1 5 year supply trend in the plan period The 5 year deliverable housing land supply (excluding buffer) for the monitoring year 2011-12 is 3.98 years. Table A below compares the 5 year housing supply figures from the previous 6 years of the plan period. The Table below shows that the 5 year supply has been decreasing over the past 5 years.

Monitoring year 5 year housing land supply 2006-07 5.5 2007-08 6.4 2008-09 5.7 2009-10 5.1 2010-11 4.74 2011-12 3.98 Table A

2.2 Housing delivery in the plan period Table B below shows that the Borough has under-delivered against the net annual housing requirement (285 dwellings per year) in each of the first six years of the plan period.

Monitoring year Number of completions (net) 2006-07 208 2007-08 142 2008-09 277 2009-10 207 2010-11 183 2011-12 251 Average per year 211 Table B

2.3 5% or 20% housing supply buffer The new requirement in paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is that Councils have to add a buffer to the housing requirement. Councils are required to:

“identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.”

2.4 Given that the Borough has not delivered the annual requirement in any of the past 6 years of the plan period it is considered that the Borough should allow for a 20% buffer due to a record of persistent under-delivery.

2.5 Managing shortfall in housing delivery There is no policy within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or Government guidance to demonstrate how any shortfall in housing delivery compared to the housing requirement should be met. However in response to the general policy direction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Government’s drive to promote house building, Planning Inspectors, through planning appeal decisions, it is recommended that we use the ‘Sedgefield approach’ to managing

Page 64

shortfall in housing delivery. The ‘Sedgefield approach’ makes up any shortfall in housing delivery within the next 5 year period. Historically we have spread the shortfall across the remaining years of the plan period (the ‘residual approach’). It is the ‘Sedgefield approach’ that has been used to calculate the 5 year housing supply in the assessment report.

2.7 Housing land supply The overall identified housing supply for the next 5 year period is 1404 dwellings. A windfall allowance of 40 dwellings per year has been added to this identified supply. This allowance has only been added to the final 2 years of the 5 year housing land supply to avoid double counting against the existing commitments (most residential permissions are valid for 3 years and those permissions will already include some windfall sites).

2.8 5 year housing supply excluding a buffer The assessment identifies that the Borough currently has a 3.98 year housing supply in the 5 year period (2012-2017).

2.9 Shortfall in housing supply When the 20% buffer is added to the calculation, the supply falls short of the requirement by 756 dwellings.

2.10 Updating the 5 year housing supply The 5 year housing supply is updated annually. The data required to calculate the 5 year supply for the monitoring year 2012-13 is currently being collected and compiled. It is envisaged that this information and an updated 5 year housing supply assessment report will be completed within the next month and will then be published on the Council’s website. Initial indications are that although there has been a significant increase in the number of housing completions within the Borough relative to previous years the 5 year housing land supply will have diminished even further.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be “ considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development ” and that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites ”. This is the position that the Borough Council is in.

3.2 The NPPF goes onto indicate, in paragraph 14, that, insofar as development management or decision-taking, is concerned, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant planning policies are out of date, means granting planning permission unless • any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or • specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be permitted

The Framework in giving examples of the latter policies refers to policies relating to land designated as Green Belt, designated heritage assets and locations at risk of flooding.

3.3 A recent example this approach in action was the appeal decision with respect to the land to the rear of 11a-19 Moorland Road where, in considering an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse the proposal on visual impact grounds, having noted that the Council accepted that its housing land supply was less than 5 years and that whilst the site was neither within the urban area nor within a rural service centre, it also accepted that it was a sustainable location from the point of view of access to services and facilities, including by public transport, the Inspector then went onto conclude that “ even if I were to have considered that harm could arise to the

Page 65

character and appearance of the area, that cannot in the circumstances significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits from the proposal, in terms of meeting housing supply and providing for improvements to the general condition of the site ”.

3.4 As the situation has developed there have been a series of responses of the planning authority to this situation, in development management terms. With the focus always being on achieving sustainable development, there has been an acceptance for some time that an objection of conflict with policies on housing land supply within the development plan cannot be raised to the development of greenfield sites within the urban area and in the Rural Service Centres (Madeley, Loggerheads and Audley Parish). Each of these locations has a village envelope or, in the case of Audley Parish, a series of village envelopes, the boundaries of which are set out in the Local Plan and on the Local Development Framework Proposals Map which can be accessed via the following link www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/planning/proposalsmap

3.5 More recently the same position has been adopted to proposals within those village envelopes that are not within the Rural Service Centres and are not “washed over” by the Green Belt. This means Betley, Mow Cop, Madeley Heath, Baldwins Gate, Ashley and Whitmore. Even though Core Spatial Strategy Policy ASP6 seeks to direct residential development, within the rural areas, to the Rural Service Centres, this policy cannot be considered to be “up to date” and provided the development in question is a sustainable one such locations can be an acceptable location for development. The most recent example of this approach is that taken with respect to the proposed development at the Sheet Anchor (reference 13/00145/OUT) when th considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on the 16 April

3.6 It is likely that applications for residential development will be received that will be neither within the urban area nor within the Rural Service Centres nor village envelopes indicated above. Each will need to be considered on its own merits bearing in mind in particular the guidance set out within paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as set out in paragraph 3.2 above. Similarly applications can be expected on employment sites whose development for residential purposes may be considered to be contrary to Local Plan Policy E11 on proposals that would lead to the loss of good quality business and general industrial land. Again the same approach will need to be taken.

Page 66 Agenda Item 13

Revocation of the Regional Strategy for the West Midlands and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 policies

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To advise Members of the changes to Development Plan as a consequence of the revocation of the Regional Strategy for the West Midlands and the saved Structure Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information is received.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

No specific action by the Borough Council is required at this point

The Regional Strategy for the West Midlands (Revocation) Order 2013 was laid before Parliament on 24 th April 2013 and came into force on 20 th May 2013.

The effect of the Order is that the Regional Strategy for the West Midlands (RSS) and the Regional Economic Strategy for the region have been revoked. In addition the direction under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 Of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 preserving policies contained in structure plans in the are to which the RSS relates are also revoked.

The consequence of this is that the RSS and the SP policies no longer form part of the Development Plan and as such are not material in the determination of the planning application and related matters. Policies within the Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent Core Strategy 2006-26 and the saved policies of the Newcastle- under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 remain in force however.

Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 68 Agenda Item 14

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 – Changing heritage protection in England

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To inform members of the new changes that are contained within the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which recently received Royal assent and which affect the way we protect heritage in England.

RECOMMENDATION

That the reforms are noted.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

No specific action by the Borough Council is required at this point

1.0 Background

1.1 Some of these changes have been proposed through former heritage protection reforms discussed a number of years ago. Others are more recent and stem from a public consultation on heritage reform last year in 2012.

1.2 The package of reforms is aimed at deregulation and promoting growth.

2.0 Purpose of the reforms 2.1 A key purpose of the reforms is to reduce uncertainty and risk in the management of listed buildings. The reforms are supposed to be complimentary with one another and it is proposed that the increased likelihood of certainty will improve the current system and lead to quicker timescales and a reduction in unnecessary applications for Listed Building Consents. The reforms are seen as improving the system without reducing the necessary protection to preserve the historic environment.

3.0 Heritage Reforms 3.1 In summary the key changes within the Act are:- • The removal of the separate requirement to apply for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of unlisted buildings in Conservation Areas, which will now be covered by the granting of planning permission. The former offence which applied to non-approval for such demolition works will be replaced by a similar crime of failing to obtain the required planning permission (for such works). • The introduction of statutory basis for Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPAs) for listed buildings which can grant prior approval Listed Building Consent for specific agreed works • The introduction of Certificates of Immunity from listing which will be able to be sought at any time without the need for a concurrent planning application, which is the way the current system works. • Listing entries on the national heritage list can be more specific about what a building’s features of significance are and can specify which part of a building does not have special interest if that is the case. These can be either parts of the building, buildings attached or within the curtilage of

Page 69

the principal Listed Building. This will provide some clarification on applications for works to ‘curtilage buildings’ and attached buildings. • The introduction of Certificates of Lawfulness of Works to listed buildings for proposed works, providing local planning authorities with a mechanism to confirm formally that Listed Building Consent (LBC) is not required where such works would not impact upon on a building’s special interest. This will enable an owner to have clarification of whether works needs LBC or not. Such certificates will last for 10 years. • The introduction of local and national class consents granting LBC automatically without the need for separate LBC, for certain categories of work or buildings. This new tool is intended to reduce the number of LBC applications which have positive or neutral effect on a heritage asset. Set up by LPA’s, the local consent orders are aimed at areas which are relatively uniform in character but more importantly where the special interest is understood and informed. Nationally similar class consents are being aimed at works which might apply to more than one Local Planning Authority or are nationally applied, for example works undertaken by the Canals and Rivers Trust (the successor to the British Waterways Board) who have a large number of assets that cross local authority borders with similar Listed structures such as canal bridges.

4.0 Next Steps

th 4.1 It is expected that by 25 June 2013 changes relating to List Descriptions and Certificates of Immunity will come into force. The other measures will require secondary legislation and guidance and consultation on these will take place later this year.

4.2 English Heritage sees itself as playing a pivotal role in elements of the reforms and will work with the relevant government departments to develop secondary legislation. It will also run training events later in the Autumn. 4.3 There will be a need for Council to amend its Scheme of Delegations to take into account the introduction of Heritage Partnership Agreements and Certificates of Lawfulness, so as to confirm who, within the Council, has the authority to enter into such agreements or decide applications for such certificates.

5.0 Background

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013

Page 70 Agenda Item 15

Audley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To inform the Planning Committee of the results of the consultation process on the draft Audley Conservation Area and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and to consider the SPD prior to its adoption by Cabinet.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning Committee commend the draft Audley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document to Cabinet for adoption.

REASON The consultation period is now over, the responses have been analysed with recommendations as to how the document should be amended before its adoption, and a period within which further representations can be made has also passed.

1.0 Introduction

th 1.1 The Planning Committee, on 19 February this year, approved a draft Audley Conservation Area and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for consultation purposes. It was also agreed that a further report be submitted to the Committee on the outcome of the public consultation, before adoption of it is considered by Cabinet.

2.0 Background

2.1 The SPD seeks to provide additional information to ensure that the Borough’s Conservation Areas are safeguarded for the future to supplement the objectives and policies contained in the Joint Core Spatial Strategy. The SPD redefines the special interest of the Audley Conservation Area and identifies issues which threaten these special qualities. The Management Plan provides a framework for future actions.

3.0 Consultation process and results 3.1 The consultation on the draft SPD took place over a six week period from 28 February th 2013 to 11 April 2013. This draft is available to view via the following link - www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/planning/AudleyCAAMP

3.2 The consultation exercise involved working with the Parish Council, Audley Millennium Trust and the Audley Locality Action Partnership:

o The documents were on the Council’s website and made available in Newcastle Library, the Guildhall and Audley Library. All of these details are also available on the Parish Council website. o A news release was sent and published by the Sentinel. th o An exhibition and consultation event held at the library in Audley on 28 March th for 3 hours and in the Church Hall on 9 April 2013 in the evening. Posters

Page 71

about this event were sent to all groups and put up on noticeboards, in the library and around the village.

3.3 There was only one submitted response to the consultation on the draft. A consultation statement has been prepared with the individual comment and the response, including any recommended changes. A copy of this Statement is appended to this report as Appendix A. The representation can be viewed on request.

3.4 The response to the document was minimal, and that may be for a number of reasons. The document was written with the help and cooperation of the Parish Council and local community groups.

3.5 Because of the limited nature of the proposed amendment to the boundary change (so as to include the whole of the pond at Leddys field), members are asked to refer to the copy of consultation draft that they were provided with as part of the agenda for the Planning th Committee on the 19 February (Item 10) a link to which is provided here - www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/planning/AudleyCAAMP Any member wishing to obtain a new hard copy of the documents is asked to contact Planning Services.

th 3.6 The Conservation Advisory Working Party at its meeting on the 28 May 2013 will consider the Audley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document as now amended and its views will be reported to the Committee..

3.7 Under the 2012 Local Planning Regulations, before the SPD can be adopted the Council has to make available both the SPD and the Consultation Statement and allow a further th limited period for representations to be made. This consultation period ends on 24 May and to date no responses have been received. Any responses will be tabled in a supplementary report.

4.0 Next Steps

4.1 Once adopted, the SPD together with an adoption statement will be posted on the Council’s Planning website and will be made available at a charge in hard copy if requested. Electronic copies of the SPD will be emailed to all those who participated in the consultation process.

5.0 Background Papers

Consultation Draft SPD Copies of representations made on the draft SPD The SPD Consultation Statement

Page 72

Appendix A

Consultation Statement

Audley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Background

The SPD redefines the special interest of the Audley Conservation Area and identifies issues which threaten these special qualities. The Management Plan provides a framework for future actions.

Once adopted, the SPD will supplement the objectives and policies contained in the Joint Core Spatial Strategy.

1. Introduction

1.1 Regulation 12 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 th which came into force on the 6 April 2012 state that before a Local Planning Authority adopt a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) they must prepare a statement setting out: the names of any persons the authority consulted in connection with the preparation of the SPD (these are filed within the Planning and Development Service); a summary of the main issues raised in these consultations and how these have been addressed in the SPD. In addition before the SPD can be adopted the Statement has to be made available, with the Supplementary Planning Document, together with details of the date by which representations on it must be made and the address to which they must be sent.

1.2 This Consultation Statement explains the consultation process followed for the SPD, and aims to demonstrate that the Council undertook sufficient public consultations, using its best endeavours to consult and involve the community in the most effective way possible.

2. The Consultation Process

2.1 The Council contacted Audley Parish Council to see if they were interested in being involved in the process of carrying out a review of the Audley Conservation Area. Two members of the Parish Council expressed an interest and became involved. They also provided names of local groups operating in the locality who were also interested in participating. These were Audley Millennium Trust and the Locality Action Partnership. The Trust also became actively involved in the process helping to write part of the document and both the Parish Council and the Trust were involved in the preparation of the documents and fieldwork.

2.2 A six week consultation programme was carried out on the draft consultation Audley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document from 28 February to 11 April 2013.

The consultation involved:

The draft SPD and supporting documents being made available to download from the Council’s website both during and after the consultation period. All of these details also available on the Parish Council website. th An exhibition and consultation event held at the library in Audley on 28 March for 3 th hours and in the Church Hall on 9 April 2013 in the evening. Posters about this event were sent to all groups and put up on noticeboards, in the library and around the village. News release sent to and published by the Sentinel. Inspection copies of the draft SPD being made available in the Guildhall, the Borough Council offices and the Audley library.

Page 731

2.3 Following the consultation process and the production of this summary statement, representations can be made to the Council for consideration before final approval by the Council and adoption of the documents.

3.0 Summary of the main issues raised and how these have been addressed

3.1 The draft SPD has been well received informally by a number of parties, including English Heritage and the Council’s Conservation Advisory Working Party, as well as by the Parish Council and the Millennium Green Trust.

3.2 There was one formal representation made in support of the documents. Attendance at the consultation events was low; this can be interpreted as an indication that the involvement of the local community in drafting the SPD has been effective in engaging with the purpose of the SPD and its proposals and is generally supportive.

3.3 Section 4 sets out in summary the main issues raised by the comments. Proposed minor amendments to the draft SPD are set out.

4.0 Consultation Schedule - Comments Received, Council’s Response and Actions

Rep Name Summary of main issue Response Changes proposed to ID raised draft SPD 1 Mrs V Pearson 1. Agree with the boundary Noted change to include roundabout at Alsager Road/Nantwich Road to help protect stone walls. 2. Whole of pond area in Noted and agreed. Amend boundary to Leddys Field Wildlife Area include the entire should be included in the pond. Conservation Area.

Page 74 2 Agenda Item 16

Applications for exemptions from the Permitted Development Rights for Change of Use from Offices to Residential use.

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To advise Members that the application made to the Government for an exemption to the granting of permitted development rights for changes of use from offices to residential purposes was unsuccessful.

RECOMMENDATION

That the decision of the Government be noted.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

No specific action by the Borough Council is required at this point

1. Background

th 1.1 On the 24 January the Government confirmed permitted development rights for changes of use from B1(a) office to C3 residential purposes would come into force in “Spring 2013”.

1.2 At the same time Local Authorities were advised that they had an opportunity to seek an exemption (from these rights) for specific parts of their area, if they considered that was appropriate, and the area meets certain criteria. The invitation (to seek such an exemption) did however make it clear that exemptions would only be granted in exceptional circumstances

th 1.3 At the Planning Committee meeting on 19 February it was agreed that such an application be made to the Government for 8 areas of the Borough as follows;

• The Brampton/King Street Office Quarter • Identified potential office development sites – Blackfriars & Pool Dam; Stanier Street; Land adjacent to Sainsburys, Liverpool Road; Jubilee 1 and Zanzibar; • Innovation Centres 1-4, Keele Science Park; and • Keele Science Park Phase 3

2. Outcome of the application

th 2.1 On 10 May 2013 the Borough Council received the decision on the submission. The notification advised that the case advanced by the Council for the eight areas was assessed by reference to • the scale of the impact in absolute terms • the significance of the adverse impact at the level of the local authority or wider • the degree to which there is likely to be a strategic and long-term adverse economic impact • whether the proposed area for exemption is the smallest area necessary to address the potential adverse economic impact

The assessment looked at the strength of the case and the robustness of the evidence base. As had been previously indicated the assessment was on the basis of the identification of substantial adverse economic consequences at the local authority level which are not offset by the positive benefits the government anticipates the new rights will bring, and with this in mind the threshold for exemptions was set very high by Ministers.

With respect to each of the 8 areas the conclusion reached by the DCLG was that the submission did not score highly enough by a significant amount and as such an exemption was not granted.

Page 75

2.2 The consequence of this is that the new permitted development rights (referred to at the third bullet point of part 3 of the report to be found elsewhere in this agenda, on the introduction of new permitted development rights and associated prior notification th procedures) will apply in all parts of the Borough as from 30 May 2013.

Background information th DCLG letter of 24 January 2013 th Report to Planning Committee 19 February 2013 nd Submission to DCLG 22 February 2013 th DCLG letter of 10 May 2013 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013

Page 76 Agenda Item 17

Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the introduction of new permitted development rights and associated prior notification procedures

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To advise Members of the changes to permitted development rights.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information is received.

Following consultations on the proposed changes to permitted development rights in 2012, which in part has been the subject of debate both within Parliament and in the media, the th Government laid before Parliament on 9 May 2013 a Statutory Instrument (2013 No. 1101) which amends the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (the GPDO). The amendments change certain permitted development rights and introduce new rights, and th such amendments come into force on 30 May 2013.

The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the changes to the GPDO for information. The amendments are summarised below:-

1. The size of single-storey rear extensions (set out in Class A Part 1 of Schedule 2 as amended) which can be built under permitted development has increased for a period of three years between 30 May 2013 and 30 May 2016. The size limits have doubled from 4m to 8m for detached houses, and from 3m to 6m for all other houses where they are not on article 1 (5) land (i.e. land within a National Park, the Broads, and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Conservation Area, and land within World Heritage Sites).

These new larger extensions (i.e. if they extend between 4 and 8m, or between 3 and 6m) must go through a prior notification process. The homeowner must notify the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and provide specified information. The LPA must then serve notice on adjoining owners or occupiers (those who share a boundary, including to the rear) giving a period of at least 21 days within which such owners or occupiers could raise an objection. If an objection is received the LPA must take this into account and make a decision about whether the impact on the amenity of all adjoining properties is acceptable. No other issues can be considered.

The development can go ahead if the LPA notifies the developer in writing that no objection has been received and that it has not been necessary to consider the impact on amenity, or if following consideration it has decided that the effect on amenity is acceptable. If the LPA considers that amenity will be adversely affected it can refuse to give prior approval. This must be done within 42 days of the receipt of the required information, and if the LPA fails to notify the developer of its decision within that period the development may go ahead.

The extension must be built in accordance with the details submitted, and approved if prior approval is required, unless the LPA agrees any changes in writing. In addition it must accord with all other limitations and conditions which apply to other rear extensions allowed under permitted development rights. To benefit from these permitted development rights, the extension must be completed on or before 30 May

Page 77

2016. The developer must notify the local authority in writing of the date of completion.

2. The height of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure at a school (as set out in Class A, Part 2 of Schedule 2), which can be erected under permitted development can be up to 2m above ground level on any boundary provided that if more than 1m it does not create an obstruction to the view of persons using the highway as to be likely to cause a danger. If that is the case the maximum height remains at 1m.

3. There are a number of changes relating to changes of use (set out at Part 3 of Schedule 2) as follows;

• Class B (which permits changes of uses from Use Class B2 (general industrial) or B8

• (storage and warehousing) uses to B1 (Business) uses, and changes of use to Class B8 from B1 or B2 uses) has been amended at paragraph B1. Whereas it previously stated that development is not permitted by Class B where the change is to or from a use falling within Class B8, if that change 2 relates to more than 235m of floor space in the building, the Amendment 2 increases the floorspace threshold to 500m .

• Class J is added permitting the change of use of a building and land within its curtilage to Use Class C3 (dwellinghouse) from Class B1(a) offices subject to the developer applying for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for transport and highway impacts, contamination and flooding risks.

• Class K is added permitting the change of use of a building and land within its curtilage to use as a state funded school from a use falling within Use Classes B1 (business), C1 (hotels), C2 (residential institutions), C2A (secure residential institutions), and D2 (assembly and leisure) uses. Development is not permitted by Class K where the site is or forms part of a military explosives storage area or a safety hazard area, or if the building is a Listed Building or a Scheduled Monument.

• Class L is added permitting the change of use of land from a use permitted by Class K to its previous lawful use.

• Class M is added permitting the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from an agricultural building to a flexible use falling within Use Classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes), B1 (business), B8 (storage and distribution, C1 (hotels) or D2 (assembly and leisure). Development is not permitted by rd Class M if the building has not been solely in agricultural use since 3 July rd 2012 or for buildings first brought into use after 3 July 2012, for 10 years; the cumulative floor space of buildings which have changed under Class M 2 within an original agricultural unit exceeds 500m ; where the site is or forms part of a military explosives storage area or a safety hazard area; or if the building is a Listed Building or a Scheduled Monument. This is again subject 2 2 to prior approval type procedures for buildings 150m to 500m (which is the maximum floorspace where such a change of use is permitted) as per Classes J and K, with certain info having to be provided to the LPA for 2 buildings up to 150.m

Page 78

The amendments include the introduction of a procedure requiring the developer to apply for a determination as to whether prior approval of the LPA will be required as to transport and highway and noise impacts of the development; contamination and flooding risks on the site. Such procedures apply to Class J, K and M with the floor 2 space exceeds 150sqm up to the maximum 500.m

The “prior approval” procedure requires the LPA to consult the Highway Agency/Authority where in the opinion of the LPA the development is likely to result in a material increase or material change to the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site. The Environment Agency (EA) must be consulted where the development is in an area within Flood Zone 2 or 3 or within Flood Zone 1 if the (EA) has notified the LPA that the area has critical drainage problems. In addition the LPA must give notice of the proposed development by display of a site notice for not less than 21 days.

The development can go ahead if the LPA notifies the developer in writing that prior approval is not required or prior approval has been given. Such notification, or notification that prior approvals is refused, must be done within 56 days of the receipt of the required information, and if the LPA fails to notify the developer of its decision within that period the development may go ahead

2 If the floorspace does not exceed 150m under Class M the developer must, before the change of use takes place, inform the LPA of the date the site will begin to be used for any of the flexible uses, the nature of uses and a plan indicating the site and which buildings have changed use.

4. There are a couple of changes relating to temporary buildings and uses (Part 4 of Schedule 2) as follows

• Class C is added permitting, for a single academic year, the temporary use of a building and land within its curtilage for use as a state funded school. Development is not permitted by Class C where the site is or forms part of a military explosives storage area or a safety hazard area, or if the building is a listed building or a scheduled monument.

• Class D is added permitting the change of use of a building and land within its curtilage for a flexible use within either Use Class A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) or B1 (business) from a use falling within Class A1, A2, A3, A5 (hot food takeaways), B1, C1 (hotels) and D2 (assembly and leisure) for a single continuous period of 2 years. Development is not permitted by Class D 2 where the change of use relates to more than 150m of floor space in the building; the site has at any time in the past relied upon the permission granted by Class D; the site is or forms part of a military explosives storage area or a safety hazard area, or if the building is a listed building or a scheduled monument.

5. The size of an erection, extension or alteration of an industrial building or warehouse th permitted under Class A of Part 8 of Schedule 2 has increased until 30 May 2016. 2 2 The floorspace permitted has doubled from 100m to 200m where the development is not on Article 1(5) land.

Page 79

th The development shall be completed on or before 30 May 2016 and the developer shall notify the LPA of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion.

6. Development by electronic communications code operators (set out at Part 24 of Schedule 2) consisting of the construction, installation, alteration or replacement of a telegraph pole, cabinet or line, in connection with the provision of fixed-line broadband no longer requires planning permission on Article 1(5) land provided the th development is completed on or before 30 May 2018. Such proposals would have to go through the existing prior approval procedures (TDET applications).

7. Part 3 is added to Part 32 of Schedule 2 (schools, colleges, universities and hospitals) clarifying that for the purposes of Part 32 “school” includes a building permitted temporarily under Class C of Part 4 (referred to at 4 above).

8. The size of an erection, extension or alteration of an office building permitted under Class A of Part 41 of Schedule 2 and a shop or catering, financial or professional services establishment permitted under Class A of Part 32 of Schedule 2 has th increased until 30 May 2016 where it is not on a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The cumulative floor space permitted increases from 25% of the gross floor space to 2 50%, or 100m whichever is the lesser.

th The development shall be completed on or before 30 May 2016 and the developer shall notify the LPA of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion.

Key Implications of the Changes

th Some types of development that up until 30 May 2013 required the benefit of planning permission no longer needs to be the subject of a planning application. The prior notification procedures that have been set out significantly restrict when consideration can be given to the development and what can be addressed by the LPA. This could potentially result in unfounded complaints that the LPA are not exercising appropriate control over development.

In the case of the new permitted development rights relating to larger extensions the procedure does not require the submission of a fee. The handling of such prior notification applications will still involve the use of resources at a time when it is likely there will be a reduction in fee income because certain development will no longer require planning permission.

Should the developer not receive written notice of the LPA’s decision relating to any prior approval determination within the set time period the developer is entitled to carry out the development regardless of any concerns that the LPA may have. It is therefore imperative that the developer receives such written notification within the relevant time period and as such it is intended to determine such prior notification applications under delegated authority. A review of the Scheme of Delegations may be required to ensure a fit for purpose and comprehensible scheme is adopted.

Page 80 Agenda Item 18

Application for Financial Assistance (Historic Buildings Grants) from the Conservation and Heritage Fund – The garden house at 21 Larchwood, Keele University (reference 13/14002/HBG)

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Committee approves a grant of £2,890 for the garden house at 21 Larchwood, Keele University, subject to the appropriate standard conditions.

Purpose of report

To consider an application for financial assistance towards the cost of the repair of the above building of special architectural and historic interest.

Introduction

The property is a Grade II Listed Building, listed in 1993. It is found slightly out of context now in the rear of a private garden of a relatively modern house on the university campus. It was originally designed to take advantage of the long views to the south along an avenue of Pine trees in the historic parkland. But it is a historic structure built around 1870, and this summer house is considered to be a rare example of a fully tiled summerhouse by Minton & Hollins.

During the Council’s Buildings at Risk survey of all of the borough’s Listed Buildings, which was published in 2011, this structure was identified as one ‘at risk’. The proposed works are to comprise re-roofing, repairs to cracked/displaced brickwork, remedial works to the brickwork reinforcement, specialist brick and stone cleaning, joinery repairs and specialist ceramic tile conservation and re-decoration. The work will ensure that the building is refurbished and protected for the future.

The cost of the works is £9,543 of which all is eligible work. The work has been specified, and is being overseen by a conservation accredited architect the fees for whom are £2,500. The total cost including VAT is £14,452. As the structure is a Grade II Listed Building, the work is eligible for a grant of £2,890, 20% of the cost.

Financial Implications

There is sufficient funding to meet this grant application with approximately £60,000 in the Fund, which allows for commitments.

Conclusions

The building has no economic use and therefore it is particularly appropriate that works to it should be supported through the Council’s grant scheme. The application meets all the Council’s criteria for the repair and restoration of the heritage asset. The views of the Conservation Advisory Working Party are being sought and will be reported to the Planning Committee.

Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 82 Agenda Item 19

Application for Financial Assistance (Historic Buildings Grant) from the Conservation and Heritage Fund – 1 The Old Vicarage, Mow Cop (reference 13/14003/HBG)

RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning Committee approves a grant of £2,170 for 1 The Old Vicarage, Mow Cop, subject to the appropriate standard conditions.

Purpose of report

To consider an application for financial assistance towards the cost of the repair of the above building of special architectural and historic interest.

Introduction

The property is a Grade II Listed Building including and forms part of a group with St Thomas’s Church and the former school which is now run by Mow Cop Residents Association.

The gable wall is in need of re-pointing and the lead box gutter also needs replacing. The mortar on the gable wall will be raked out by hand and re-pointed up with lime. The gutter will be replaced like for like. The windows on the front elevation have been replaced many years ago with a slight bow. This is an inappropriate design and the owner proposes to reinstate multi-paned windows of the same design as the other historic windows on the property.

The cost of the work including VAT is £10,846 of which all is eligible work. As the structure is a Grade II Listed Building, the work is eligible for a grant of £2,170, 20% of the cost.

Financial Implications

There is sufficient funding to meet this grant application with approximately £60,000 in the fund, which allows for commitments.

Conclusions

The repair work is essential for future of the building and the reinstatement of the sash windows will benefit the appearance of the building and should be supported through the Council’s grant scheme. It meets all the Council’s criteria for the repair and restoration of the heritage asset. The views of the Conservation Advisory Working Party are being sought and will be reported to the Planning Committee.

Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 84 Agenda Item 20

Application for Financial Assistance (Historic Buildings Grants) from the Conservation and Heritage Fund - Roche House, 5 Court Walk, Betley, (Ref: 13/14004/HBG)

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Committee approves a grant of £2,285 for Roche House, 5 Court Walk, Betley, subject to the appropriate standard conditions.

Purpose of report To consider an application for financial assistance towards the cost of the restoration and rebuilding of part of the garden wall of the above building of special architectural and historic interest.

Introduction

The application concerns works to a garden wall, which is part of the former walled garden of the Betley Court estate. The wall is 2.5 metres high and surrounds the garden on its northern and eastern sides. The wall was recognised in the Betley Conservation Area Appraisal (2008) as an important heritage structure and is now on the Council’s Register of Locally Important Buildings and Structures. The section of wall lying on the eastern side of the property collapsed in January and the owner wishes to reinstate it.

The cost of the work is £16,650 of which all is eligible work. The work has been specified and would be overseen by a structural engineer whose fees are £2,390. The total including VAT is £22,848. As the structure is a historic garden wall on the Local Register, the work is eligible for a grant of £2,285, which is 10% of the cost.

The works require listed building consent, and an application for that consent has been made (13/00281/LBC). That application has yet to be determined. In response to the consultation Betley, Balterley and Wrinehill Parish Council have indicated that they strongly support that application (for listed building consent) to achieve restoration of this important historical feature. No other representations have been received to date.

Financial Implications

There is sufficient funding to meet this grant application with approximately £60,000 in the Fund, which allows for commitments.

Conclusions

The structure has no economic use and the owner is under no obligation to re-erect the wall which could be replaced by any means of enclosure (to the same height). The application therefore should be supported through the Council’s grant scheme so that this important part of Betley’s historical and architectural heritage is retained for the future. The application meets all the Council’s criteria for the repair and restoration of the heritage asset. The views of the Conservation Advisory Working Party are being sought and will be reported to the Planning Committee.

Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 86 Agenda Item 21

APPEAL BY MRS J ABBOTTS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF A FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION ABOVE AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 62 STATION ROAD, KEELE, NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME

Application Number 12/00622/FUL

LPA’s Decision Refused under delegated powers on 29 November 2012

Appeal decision Appeal dismissed

th Date of appeal decision 18 April 2013

The full text of the appeal decision is available to view on the Council’s website (as an associated document to application 12/00622/FUL) and the following is only a brief summary.

The Inspector considered the main issues to be whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt and the impact on its character, appearance and openness.

In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector made the following comments:

• The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out the well established presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In particular, paragraph 89 indicates that the extension of Green Belt buildings need not be inappropriate, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. • Planning permission was granted in the early 1950s for the erection of a pair of semi- detached dwellings on the site. A garage now replaced can be considered to have formed part of the original building. • When added to the previous rear extension, the increase would be in the region of 54.6% over and above the original. It is not accepted that the rear extension built under permitted development rights should be excluded from the volume figures. • A previous inspector dismissed an appeal for an extension that would have resulted in a 69% increase. The proposed extension would be a lesser increase and the first floor may be modest. However, when taken together with the previous extensions, the cumulative increase would more than double the size of the original dwelling and would amount to a disproportionate addition. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development which would be contrary to the relevant development plan policies and national guidance. • The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, the essential characteristics of which are their openness and permanence. The Inspector recognises that the footprint of the property would not increase as a consequence of the development proposed. Nevertheless, the overall bulk and mass of the building would increase and there would be some loss of openness of this part of the Green Belt in this regard, contrary to national guidance. • In terms of any very special circumstances the appellant argued that existing permitted development rights allow for further extension to the property without the need for planning permission, for example through the addition of an additional single storey extension to the rear and/or the erection of a substantial detached outbuilding. The Inspector, however, did not accept that such development would represent a likely alternative to the development sought ie an additional bedroom, and so was unlikely to represent a realistic ‘fallback’. On that basis, this consideration carried no weight in favour of the appeal.

RECOMMENDATION

That the decision be noted.

Page 87 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 88 Agenda Item 22

APPEAL BY ASPIRE HOUSING GROUP AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL TO REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF A TWO DETAICHED DWELLINGS WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SITE ACCESS AND PROVISION OF ON SITE TURNING AREAS ON LAND AT REARO OF 11A-19 MOORLANDS ROAD, MOW COP

Application Number 12/00282/OUT

nd LPA’s Decision Refused at the Planning Committee meeting on 2 October 2012

Appeal decision Appeal allowed

nd Date of appeal decision 2 May 2013

The full text of the appeal decision is available to view on the Council’s website (as an associated document to application 12/00282/OUT) and the following is only a brief summary.

The Inspector considered the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

In allowing the appeal, the Inspector made the following comments:

• The proposed development would be located adjacent to the rear boundaries of properties on Moorland Road. The properties on Moorland Road are in an elevated and prominent position in the local landscape. Although the appeal proposal would be visible from various viewpoints within the surrounding area, it would be seen against the backdrop of the existing residential development on Moorland Road. It would appear as an integral part of the existing residential development. • The development would not materially harm views of the open countryside to the south enjoyed by users of the path. • The appeal site is somewhat neglected and degraded and the proposed development, if carefully considered, will provide for the restoration and improvement of the site. • In conclusion the visual impact of the building development on the character and appearance of the area would be minimal. • The Inspector considered that a contribution towards NTADS would promote the use of more sustainable modes of travel, and as such it would be necessary to make the development acceptable. The Inspector had no reason to conclude that the sum request was not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. • The village of Mow Cop has bus services and a number of services and facilities within the village itself. The occupants would have therefore have access to certain services and facilities within walking and cycling distance and would have a choice of modes of transport as alternatives to the private motor vehicle. This together with the measures identified in NTADS would result in the development representing a sustainable development. • The Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable housing development where the development plan is not up to date. In such circumstances the Inspector advised that even if the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, that cannot significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal in terms of meeting housing supply and providing improvements to the general condition of the site.

RECOMMENDATION

That the decision be noted.

Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 90 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A Agenda Item 25 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 96