Agenda and minutes

Councillor R Blaney declared a Other Registrable Interest in Application No. 23/00436/FUL – Village Hall, Main Street, Morton, as he was the named applicant in the position of Church Warden.

Councillor Mrs S Saddington declared a Non-Registrable Interest regarding Application No. 23/00333/FUL – Field Reference No. 9208, Moor Lane, East Stoke, as she was known to the applicant and would not take part in the debate or vote at the Planning Committee.

Councillors R Crowe; L Goff; M Skinner declared a Non-Registrable Interest regarding Application No.23/00407/TWCA – Sherwood Avenue Park, Sherwood Avenue, Newark, as they were Members of Newark Town Council.

Councillor Mrs L Dales declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Application No. 22/00907/FUL – The Old Vicarage, Church Lane, South Scarle, as she was neighbour to the applicant and would not take part in the debate or vote at the Planning Committee.  She also declared a Non-Registrable Interest in Application No. 23/00211/FUL – Former Buffer Depot and Driving Test Centre, Bowbridge Road, Newark on Trent, as she was a Trustee of Sherwood Forest Hospital Trust.

Councillors Mrs L Dales, I Walker and K Walker declared Non-Registrable Interests as appointed representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

The Chairman advised that the proceedings were being audio recorded and live streamed by the Council.

AGREED      that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2023 were

                       approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Planning Committee Chairman, with the permission of the Planning Committee changed the order of business and Agenda Item No. 15 was brought as the first item of business.  The agenda resumed it stated order thereafter.

Site Visit: 9.30am – 9.40am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the proposed conversion of existing Coach House to an annex and proposed erection of a two-storey garage and conservatory.  A site visit took place before the meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Planning Case Officer and the Applicant. This included a change to the description of development.

Councillor P Rowland, on behalf of South Scarle Parish Meeting, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of South Scarle Parish Meeting, as contained within the report.

Members considered the application acceptable with an additional condition stating that the garage should remain ancillary to the main house.

Having declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in this item, Councillor Mrs Dales left the meeting.

AGREED     (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report and an additional condition that the garage is ancillary to the main house.

Councillor Mrs Dales returned to the meeting.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the demolition of a Scout hut and the erection of a replacement building providing training and changing facilities following the deferral from March’s meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Planning Case Officer and Agent.

Councillor R Jackson, Local Ward Member for Dover Beck, spoke in support of the application for the following reasons.  This was a facility provided for young people through the scouting organisation.  The building would be increased in size by 30% and was a modest building anyway.  The children using the facilities were from inner cities and urban areas who had taken up the chance to undertake water sports and outdoor activities.  It was only the right decision to provide them with changing and shower facilities and it was appropriate for leisure facilities for young people in the green belt.

Members considered the application, and they considered the location appropriate for the proposed water sports outdoor activities as the facilities were needed for safeguarding reasons.  The building was not incongruous and would tidy up that area and improve the site.  One Member felt that the green belt should be protected.

A vote was taken and lost with one vote For and thirteen votes Against Refusal.

AGREED     (with 13 votes For and 1 vote Against) that contrary to Officer recommendation, planning permission be approved subject to the following conditions and reasons.

                   Conditions:

(i)               three-year time limit;

(ii)             highways and drainage;

(iii)            two informative to the applicant regarding Radon and drainage laws;

(iv)            delegated authority be granted to the Business Manager – Planning Development to include reasonable conditions.

Reason for Approval:

(i)              the Committee considered the development complies with national Green Belt policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 149(b) in that the development is an appropriate facility for outdoor sort and recreation (as set out in the report) and is also considered to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.  This is due to the context of the site already having built development present and whilst the new building is larger, within the wider context of the industrial buildings within the near vicinity it will not result in either harm or conflict.

In accordance with paragraph 13.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

Site Visit: 12.30pm – 12.40pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the construction of on-line flood storage reservoir to create upstream storage area on Cocker Beck to provide flood protection to village of Lowdham including removal of material and re-profiling of land and construction of associated embankment that will contain flow control structure in the form of engineered conduit; diversion of Cocker Beck for approximately 670m and diversion of the tributary to the north for approximately 250m; a number of additional elements including; the realignment of two Public Rights of Way, formation of new vehicular access to Lambley Road, residential/farm access track realignment, environmental mitigation works and landscaping (Re-submission of 21/02418/FULM).  A site visit took place before the meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Planning Case Officer; Agent and Local Resident.

The Planning Committee Chairman with the permission of the Planning Committee allowed Councillor R Jackson to address Committee as adjoining Ward Member in the absence of Councillor T Wendels.

Councillor R Jackson, Local Ward Member for Dover Beck, spoke in support of the application on the grounds that the proposal would prevent a lot of properties from flooding in Lowdham.

Members considered the application and commented on the tremendous amount of work that was involved with this scheme to alleviate the problem of flooding.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved for the recommendations contained within the report, including completion of a legal agreement, no new material planning conditions being raised before the end of the consultation period and delegated authority granted to Officers to allow for any amendments to be made to the planning conditions before issue.

Site Visit: 10.15am – 10.25am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the proposed change of use to residential caravan site for gypsy/travellers (19 No. pitches), relocation of 2 no. existing pitches, construction of 1 no. managers dwelling, an amenity building and creation of a new access.  A site visit took place before the meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the following: Planning Case Officer; Nottinghamshire County Council Highways; Local Residents; Balderton Parish Council; Barnby-in-the-Willows Parish Council; Robert Jenrick MP Office; and a copy of a letter from a Local Resident. 

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed the Committee of two further objections received.

The Chairman informed the Committee that he had agreed to allow Balderton Parish Council to speak as the application was in their parish and also Barnby-in-the-Willows and Coddington Parish Council as they were neighbouring parishes.

Councillor G Lee, on behalf of Balderton Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Balderton Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Councillor G Bett, on behalf of Barnby-in-the-Willows Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Barnby-in-the-Willows Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Councillor T Dikkez, on behalf of Coddington Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Coddington Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Councillor J Lee, Local Ward Member for Balderton North & Coddington, spoke against the application on the grounds that if planning permission was granted it would set a dangerous precedent as the large house could be built and then never have any gypsy travellers taking up the pitches, it was considered a way around the rules for building in the open countryside.  He commented that he had supported gypsy traveller applications in the past, however this application was not Council run and there was no evidence for any need at this location.  If there wasn’t any take up, the utility block may also be used as a second home in the future.

The Business Manager – Planning Development in relation to a question that an Environmental Assessment had not been undertaken, explained that the site did not fall into any of the categories set out in Schedule 1 and did not fall within the thresholds of Schedule 2 and an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.

Members considered the application and felt that the dwelling was too large in the open countryside and to use the gypsy traveller site to get such a large dwelling was considered unethical.  It was also commented that there were no footpaths connecting to major facilities from this site.  Another Member felt that the application was acceptable given the need for gypsy traveller sites in the district. 

The Business Manager – Planning development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Site Visit: 11.25am – 11.35am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the demolition of two single storey bungalows and construction of 8 dwellings that included off-street parking provision and outdoor amenity space.  A site visit took place before the meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from Rolleston Village Hall.

Councillor Baillon, on behalf of Rolleston Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Rolleston Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Members considered the application, and it was commented that the two bungalows that had stood empty for six years was too long given the need for housing.  It was commented that the intensity on the access road was too great and the largest of the open market houses would impact on the appropriate use of the village hall.  The design was considered to have been taken off the shelf and was not desirable.  The road adjacent to the site had not been adopted and was in a poor state and the maintenance of that road was unclear.  The car parking arrangements for the development were not adequate.  The grass verge may be used for car parking however that was included in the landscaping scheme and would have trees planted on it.  Concern was raised regarding the risk of flooding, an area that had previously flooded.  Another Member commented that the scheme may put the village hall in danger if there were not adequate car parking arrangements for visitors to the village hall. Another Member commented that there was a shortage of bungalows, and it wasn’t very often that bungalows were demolished.  Members further commented on the size and scale of the development and would prefer the replacement of the bungalows with bungalows.

A vote was taken to Approve which was lost with one vote For and twelve votes Against.

AGREED      (with 12 votes For and 1 vote Against) that contrary to Officer recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

(i)                  Over intensive development at the site resulting in inadequate visitor car parking,

(ii)                likely impact on the use of Village Hall due to the proximity of the dwellings;

(iii)              issue of design;

(iv)              measures for maintenance of the road not provided; and

(v)                landscaping which was failure to demonstrate unauthorised car parking due to road maintenance.

In accordance with paragraph 13.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

In accordance with Rule 30.1, the Chairman indicated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use of agricultural land to a proposed turning area.  A site visit took place before the meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Planning Agent.

Councillor Laughton, on behalf of Weston Parish Council, spoke in support of the application in accordance with the views of Weston Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Councillor Mrs S Michael, Local Ward Member for Sutton-On-Trent spoke in support of the application and supported the views of Weston Parish Council.  It was commented that the site was ideally positioned for the road network.  The roads would come to a standstill if this site was positioned in Newark.  The site would allow for the complete turning of vehicles.  In terms of visibility and visual harm, in a year’s time the hedge would have grown and only the hedge would be visible from the A1.   It was commented that businesses should be nurtured in the district.

Members considered the application and some Members felt that the turning point would be safer, and the site was very well laid out. Other Members commented that this was just another application in a number of applications, from the change of use from agricultural land. 

AGREED      (with 7 votes For and 6 votes Against) that planning permission be refused for the reasons contained within the report.

Site Visit: 12.00pm – 12.10pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought a reserved matters application pursuant to application 21/02680/OUT for the erection of 3 dwellings following the demolition of Broadlands; including amendment to existing vehicular access and associated works.  A site visit took place before the meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Neighbour.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (with 12 votes For and 1 vote Against) that planning permission be approved subject to conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use and conversion of hall to 8 new apartments with new bin and cycle store.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Planning Case Officer detailing the proposed conditions.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to conditions contained in the late Schedule of Communication and delegated authority be granted to the Business Manager – Planning Development  to allow for any amendments to be made before issue.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the refurbishment of the hall to provide 8 no. new apartments.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Planning Case Officer detailing the proposed conditions.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to conditions contained in the late Schedule of Communication and delegated authority be granted to the Business Manager – Planning Development to allow for any amendments to be made before issue.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use from a village hall to a dwelling with rear two storey extension and demolition of existing flat roof extensions.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from Fiskerton-Cum-Morton Parish Council.

Members considered the application acceptable.

Having declared an Other Registrable Interest Councillor R. Blaney left the meeting.

AGREED     (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

Councillor R. Blaney returned to the meeting.

Site Visit: 10.50am – 11.00am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the demolition of an existing stable block and the erection of a single storey dwelling.   A site visit took place before the meeting.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from the Applicant.

Members considered the application and the Local Ward Member commented that the proposed development was infill and would smarten the site up.  The proposed bungalow would replace the existing building.  The applicant had an urgent medical need, and the building would not be built for profit, but to maximise the benefit of the surroundings. 

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed Members that Planning consent ran with the land and not the applicant.

Having declared a Non-Registrable Interest Councillor Mrs S Saddington left the meeting.

AGREED     (with 6 votes For and 6 votes Against, the Chairman used his casting vote for Refusal) that planning permission be refused for the reasons contained within the report.

Councillor Mrs S Saddington returned to the meeting.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought aCar Park with 80 spaces, including 16 EVCP's, Solar Shelter Canopies, fencing, barrier, ticket machines and CCTV.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from Newark Town Council.

Members considered the application and the Local Ward Member commented that although the loss of trees was regrettable, this application brought the land back into use which had been derelict for some time.  The application brought more car parking spaces for the hospital and to the town.  Another Member disagreed with this and commented that Bowbridge Road was congested with traffic, there was a need to get more people on bikes and public transport.

Councillor Mrs  S Saddington commented that she was the Nottinghamshire County Council Chairman of the Health Scrutiny and she had requested new services for Newark hospital.

AGREED      (with 12 votes For and 1 vote against) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the installation of a new black hooped metal fencing and fence panels to school existing boundary.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

Councillor S Godfrey, on behalf of Halam Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Halam Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Members considered the application and the Local Ward Member commented that she was in support of Halam Parish Council and there was a need to explore whether the proposed fence was a safeguarding issue, why it had come to the Planning Committee and was it a requirement to have this fencing.  She was concerned with the fence being over two metres tall in the middle of the village, which would have a visual impact.  Other Members commented on the need for fencing around schools which was also present around the perimeter of schools in their villages, to keep  children safe.

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed the Committee that a two-metre fence could be erected without planning permission and the proposed application was an additional 11mm in height, she sought Committee consideration as to whether that additional height resulted in harm.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had no issue with the proposal.

AGREED      (with 10 votes For, 2 votes against and 1 Abstention) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought a ramp to connect Air & Space (ASI) access road.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following the publication of the agenda from Newark Town Council.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the erection of Tree 1 (Maple) and Tree 2 (Horse Chestnut) - Undertake Crown Lift to achieve a clearance of approximately 2.5m from ground level, crown clean and crown thin of up to 30% (Works to be undertaken in accordance with BS3998).

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that no objection has been raised.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning & Growth which updated the Council’s Planning Application Validation Checklist in line with Government guidance and legislation.

 AGREED            (unanimously) that:

                             (a)         the Planning Application Validation Checklists is adopted with                                          the amendments as set out within the table attached to the                                       report;

(b)          minor amendments are made to the checklist to take account      of any changing to legislation over the coming years e.g.             biodiversity net gain under delegated authority; and

(c)           the checklist is reviewed every 2 years in accordance with the           Development Management Procedure Order.

       The planning application validation checklist will contribute        towards assisting with:  Delivering inclusive and sustainable          economic growth; Creating more and better quality homes;        Enhancing and protecting the district’s natural environment.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning & Growth which informed Members of the latest permitted development right consultation and considered the proposed responses to be made.

On 28 February 2023, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities commenced a consultation on four proposals concerning permitted development rights relating to recreational campsites; renewable energy; electric charge vehicle points; and film-making. There were forty-one consultation questions – attached at appendix A to the report.  It was not proposed to respond to all consultation questions but focus on those considered of particular importance to Newark and Sherwood. 

AGREED             that:

(a)                the contents of the report and the permitted development right changes be noted; and

                             (b)         the draft Council response in Section 2 of the report be                                                      endorsed.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Executive which detailed the exempt business considered by the Committee for the period 1 March 2022 to date.

One report had been taken during exempt business entitled: Implications of new evidence on pending planning appeal in relation to application no 20/01452/OUTM Development of site for distribution uses (Use Class B8) including ancillary offices and associated works including vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking and landscaping on Land Off A17, Coddington. The opinion of the Report Author was that the information would now be open.

AGREED             (unanimously) that the report entitled: Implications of new evidence                on pending planning appeal in relation to application no                                                          20/01452/OUTM Development of site for distribution uses (Use Class                             B8) including ancillary offices and associated works including vehicular                         and pedestrian access, car parking and landscaping on Land Off A17,                              Coddington, become open.

.

AGREED that the report be noted.

AGREED             that the report be noted.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning & Growth which detailed the information of the performance of the Planning Committee. 

The report advised that all Planning Committee meetings had been held at Castle House.  The first two were held on a Tuesday (April and May) before the meeting was changed to a Thursday.  All meetings commenced at 1600 hours.  The meeting in September 2022, was cancelled due to the Civic Suite being flooded. 

Newark & Sherwood District Council’s Planning Committee sat on eleven occasions throughoutthe municipal year 2022- 2023, the same as 2021-22, noting September’s meeting was cancelled prior to it starting.  The Committee undertook twenty-two official site visits, as part of seven meetings. 

The Planning Committee considered fifty-eight planning applications over the eleven meetings. Forty-six applications were granted in line with officerrecommendation; nine applications were refused in line with officerrecommendation; one application was granted contrary to officerrecommendation; two applications were refused contrary to officerrecommendation; and of the fifty-eight, four were deferred for negotiation or further information.

Throughout the municipal year Newark & Sherwood District Council received seven appeal decisions in respect of decisions made by the Planning Committee.

Out of the seven, five of the appeals were allowed (i.e. granted) by the Inspector and one was dismissed (refused) supporting the decision of the Committee, whilst one was withdrawn by the appellant. 

Of the appeals four of these had been recommended for approval by Officers but overturned by Committee; two had been recommended by Officers to be refused; of the overturned appeals, all were dismissed.   The report also detailed the allowed appeals.  A list of the variety of reports considered by the Planning Committee was also detailed in the report.

AGREED             that the report be noted.